Jump to content
jabbr

Optical Network Configurations

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, barrows said:

@jabbr, Are you able to recommend a specific, single mode, 1 Gbe SFP module for use with the Sonore optical products off the top of your head?

I am interested in testing single mode fiber in my set up (Although RMAF preparations and product building is keeping me very busy right now). 

 

You cant go wrong with either Finisar or Avago 1000base-Lx eg https://www.finisar.com/optical-transceivers/ftlf1318p3btl

 

or Cisco https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/interfaces-modules/1000base-lx-lh-sfp/index.html which exceeds the baseline specs


Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding SFPs, I’ve bought a bunch on eBay with great results (brand name), and from fs.com (but these aren’t brand name) 

 

You can also get dual 1g/10g SFP+ modules which usually work in SFP ports and there are even longer distance rated SFPs (single mode) but frankly I can’t personally hear a difference — I might possibly with single mode but I might be fooling myself, then again some people can hear dramatics things after 30sec, that I just can’t hear. I’ve also tested 10, 40 & 100 Gbe modules on the server side for which I can’t get one iota of difference — perhaps I’m  nearly deaf. 

 

I’d say start with LX and if you can hear a difference try BX or even ZX or dual 1g/10g but I’m happy with LX.


Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, barrows said:

@jabbr, Are you able to recommend a specific, single mode, 1 Gbe SFP module for use with the Sonore optical products off the top of your head?

I am interested in testing single mode fiber in my set up (Although RMAF preparations and product building is keeping me very busy right now). 

Barrows,

 

I am using the SM BIDI  SFPs from FS.com.  The following picture shows what I purchased from them.  NOTE that you have to have two different modules as they transmit and receive on different frequencies.   These are  a single fiber .

 

NOTE that Others are using similar SFPs from Ubiquity.

 

I am setup with two SFPs in my Ubiquity switch and one in a FMC to my server and one in my Signature Rendu SE Optical.  

 

 

 

1948437127_ScreenShot2019-07-18at10_08_02PM.thumb.png.b9c1d1cb4cc0275d7de4632d813e551d.png

 

Here is the switch end with only one cable plugged in...

IMG_1720.thumb.jpeg.8d53ffc66cf24ce32bc7693ee0e51ece.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bobfa said:

I am using the SM BIDI  SFPs from FS.com.  The following picture shows what I purchased from them.  NOTE that you have to have two different modules a

as they transmit and receive on different frequencies.   There is a single fiber in use not two.

 

Thats one of the really cool things you can do with single mode fiber — you are doubling the bandwidth by multiplexing two optical signals. 100Gbe can multiplex 4 x 25G — crazy modules. 


Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2019 at 5:50 PM, jabbr said:

...cheap FMCs and switches, but I’ve personally moved on from that. (they work fine)

 

just a quick back up here - why did you move on?

 

and to what?


"The overwhelming majority [of audiophiles] have very little knowledge, if any, about the most basic principles and operating characteristics of audio equipment. They often base their purchasing decisions on hearsay, and the preaching of media sages. Unfortunately, because of commercial considerations, much information is rooted in increasing revenue, not in assisting the audiophile. It seems as if the only requirements for becoming an "authority" in the world of audio is a keyboard."

-- Bruce Rozenblit of Transcendent Sound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, vortecjr said:

They are not as simple as you think. To answer your question though we do not have plans to publish them at this time. 

 

Understood. Although a little disappointing that you talk about engineering and measurements but won't let @JohnSwenson eye pattern diagrams...  which I know he would have as part of development, since he has talked about improving USB signal integrity for years...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

 

Understood. Although a little disappointing that you talk about engineering and measurements but won't let @JohnSwenson eye pattern diagrams...  which I know he would have as part of development, since he has talked about improving USB signal integrity for years...

 

What does an eye pattern tell you though, as long as the required opening is clear the signal will get trough for a specific interface... The tighter the lines are the better the signal, but other information is required, such as supply noise, waveforms etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, marce said:

The tighter the lines are the better the signal

 

But doesn't lower supply noise etc, result in tighter lines, so better signal integrity?

 

Sure if eye patterns for the below don't show any difference, it may not tell the complete story. But if there is an improvement in eye pattern with each of the below, that's a good thing?

 

1. ultraRendu alone

2. ultraRendu + opticalModule

3. ultraRendu + etherRegen

 

Using LPS-1.2 to power everything.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lower power supply noise always helps, but digital is also immune to noise to a certain degree, so the interface could work perfectly, the PSU noise could effect other circuitry.

Signal integrity is the opposite face of a coin, EMC being the other face. Both are critical in the design  of a product, the levels you need to achieve differ for different implementations and uses of circuitry. That said I apply the same diligence and OCD to all PCB layouts and I am a great believer in over engineering to an extent.

The results you seek would be interesting and informative I do agree. My view on the front end supply is as long as it is a decent supply it should not make any difference to the results as the main and critical part of any power delivery system is already on the board as I explained above... One would hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Em2016

You may have a look at the following paper for a global approach of Jitter in general.

https://www.keysight.com/upload/cmc_upload/All/Clock_Jitter_Analysis_2008.pdf.

The document is not recent but provides a good overview.

From eye patterns you retrieve all relevant information.

Nevertheless, there are several ways to look at or measure noise in time or frequency domain.

Usually involved test equipment are: phase meters, spectrum analysers, real time scopes (Time Interval Error TIE +Digital Signal Processing), clock references (Rubidium,GPS), etc...

 

Unfortunately, when dealing with noise proof of concepts or comparisons (SFPs, crystals, clocks,etc...) there is no other way than providing proper measurements with significant differences.

Obviously above testing equipment are rather expensive (>100 kEuros/ kUSD each) and require expertise.

I am not expecting any audio companies to have the required instruments in their labs.

Keep in mind also that those publishing specifications are doing it:

- in controlled environment ( best possible conditions)

- in comparison with information provided by competitors.

(Certifications are performed by independent labs )

 

Nothing is perfect. C'est la vie...

Rgds.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, marce said:

There is a different requirement for longer distance signal transmission than the few feet we use in our homes...

Yes IEEE 802.3-2005 I believe includes specifications for metropolitan/wide area networks. 

 

1000base-lx/lh goes to 10 kM (single mode fiber) as does 10GBase-LR

10GBase-ER goes to 40 kM and the nonstandard 1000base-ZX and 10GBase-ZR go to 70 kM+!

 

So obviously if you need really good transceivers and a really tight signal upfront in order to be able to handle the degradation over distance — which is why if upstream jitter somehow made its way into the system, it wouldn’t work as specified. Upstream noise from servers does not cross modern fiberoptic networks. 


Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about Short Range 10 Gbps ones -> 400m ( 850nm/ IEEE 802.3-2012 10GBASE-SR/SW3) ?

Let me have a look at IEE 802.3 Jitter requirements by curiosity 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Arpiben said:

What about Short Range 10 Gbps ones -> 400m ( 850nm/ IEEE 802.3-2012 10GBASE-SR/SW3) ?

Let me have a look at IEE 802.3 Jitter requirements by curiosity 😉

 

According to IEEE 802.3-2018 10 GBASE-SW/SR & 10 GBASE - LW/LR do share same transmitter eye mask definitions.

 

2.jpg.79d9e7123e3b88dfd549bcb4fbf5d586.jpg  

 

1.jpg.73598aa15060ad5ffa26c68dae9fc5db.jpg

 

3.jpg.eabbc2657ebf1ecaa6de28b4d7846a47.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, John769 said:

@barrows Cisco GLC-LH-SM (x 2) confirmed working  OM -> Cisco 2960.  They were cheap s/h on ebay.

 

 

 

 

Thanks, I have these bookmarked and will likely pick up a pair for testing here, but probably not until after RMAF as preparations are taking a lot of time now.  BTW folks, hope to see some of you at the Show!  We will have a really nice set up there (I hope the new venue's rooms are going to be a bit better than the old venue).


ROON: DSD 256-Signature Rendu optical--Buffalo PRO (ESS 9038) or DSC-2--Ncore 400 Stereo-Focus Audio FS888-JL E-112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, Cardas Clear AC, XLR, & speaker cables-Synergistic Blue & Hi Fi Tuning Supreme Cu Fuses, Dark Matter system clarifiers.    Design/Build Consultant with Sonore

 

                                                                                                  SONORE computer audio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, barrows said:

And, even worse, if the eye pattern tests are not performed under the same conditions, one could be making a big mistake to compare one eye pattern diagram with another.  So, if a manufacturer shared measurements like these, it can do more harm than good.  Instead, I would suggest it is the manufacturers job to make the best product they can, and it is the users and reviewers job to evaluate the product for its performance.

 

The reason the IEEE 802.3 networking standards were upgraded after 2002 was to avoid this line of reasoning. Modern Ethernet standards include compliance testing to that customers can have more confidence that network switches, NICs, SFP modules etc will work together. If we didn’t have network interoperability then we wouldn’t have an Internet. That said your equipment does not claim to be complaint with these upgraded standards so eye pattern testing is not required for your products. 

 

Most customers don’t look at the eye pattern testing, rather the IEEE standard that is claimed to be compliant. Customers assume that companies like Cisco, Brocade, Mellanox and Intel have done the compliance testing required. Companies like Tektronix and Keysight/Agilent/HP make the testing straightforward assuming you have their equipment. Each new generation of specifications eg 800Gbe(!) requires new advances in the measurement tools, and keeps Tek & Keysight in business 😉


Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jabbr said:

The reason the IEEE 802.3 networking standards were upgraded after 2002 was to avoid this line of reasoning

 

I was referring to customers comparing eye pattern diagrams from the USB output from different sources.  I do not think your comments are relevant to this.  My comment was in response to questions asking about the USB output.

 

While the standards which you refer to are great for professionals (or enthusiastic amateurs) well versed in the subject, i still do not believe that the average customer is such, and knows how to properly interpret such tests.  Clearly I am not referring to you here though!


ROON: DSD 256-Signature Rendu optical--Buffalo PRO (ESS 9038) or DSC-2--Ncore 400 Stereo-Focus Audio FS888-JL E-112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, Cardas Clear AC, XLR, & speaker cables-Synergistic Blue & Hi Fi Tuning Supreme Cu Fuses, Dark Matter system clarifiers.    Design/Build Consultant with Sonore

 

                                                                                                  SONORE computer audio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, barrows said:

It is usually better for independent third parties to evaluate components, rather than for manufacturers to try and "prove" performance.  

I think it would be cool though, if an independent third party (reviewer) tested various Renderer's for both eye pattern on the USB data lines, and noise on the USB power lines under the same test conditions and published the results.  


I like this idea.

What would it cost pr. test ?

 

And should we add some DAC’s as well and the In the measurement chain ?

 

I’m asking what would be a fair setup ?

Including power supplies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Again, I don’t want to have an all encompassing discussion here, rather focus on optical Ethernet. My own impression regarding USB, which I suspect is similar to yours, is that it is the upgraded USB Vbus/power supply which makes the most difference for the DAC. 

Well, certainly the very clean USB power is an important feature of the opticalRendu.  But John has some interesting ideas RE USB signal integrity, and I would not contradict him on that (these ideas are discussed in depth elsewhere on these forums).

 

8 minutes ago, jabbr said:

My claim is that fiberoptic Ethernet compliant to the modern standards does not transmit noise from upstream servers to the DAC

Agreed, that is why we incorporated it into the systemOptique product line.

 

But we ARE getting a bit off topic here, sorry for that...  Folks, let's try and keep the discussion here to @jabbr's topic.


ROON: DSD 256-Signature Rendu optical--Buffalo PRO (ESS 9038) or DSC-2--Ncore 400 Stereo-Focus Audio FS888-JL E-112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, Cardas Clear AC, XLR, & speaker cables-Synergistic Blue & Hi Fi Tuning Supreme Cu Fuses, Dark Matter system clarifiers.    Design/Build Consultant with Sonore

 

                                                                                                  SONORE computer audio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, marce said:

 

Signal integrity is the opposite face of a coin, EMC being the other face.

 

Assuming both single and multimode SFPs and fiberoptic cable’s completely isolate EMI from the source eg server, is there reason to believe that the improved electronics in the single mode SFP cause less EMI from the destination?

 

I know that the VSel lasers are considered to be substantially better, but are the opticalelectronic transducers different?

 

18 hours ago, marce said:

 

 One would hope.

 


Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Assuming both single and multimode SFPs and fiberoptic cable’s completely isolate EMI from the source eg server, is there reason to believe that the improved electronics in the single mode SFP cause less EMI from the destination?

 

I know that the VSel lasers are considered to be substantially better, but are the opticalelectronic transducers different?

 

 

 

Hi @jabbr

 

Sorry but I am not fully understanding. As far as I know:

  • MMF SFP transceivers are using VCSEL lasers
  • SMF SFP transceivers are using DFB or Fabry-Perot lasers.

Therefore I am expecting Multimode SFP electronics to cause less EMI from the destination.

You are expecting the opposite. Sincerely I have no clue and would appreciate if you can elaborate.

Rgds.

 

MMF: Multi Mode Fibers 

SMF: Single Mode Fibers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...