Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Recommended Posts

Will be curious if this switch negates the need for a fiber optical bridge like many of us have pre-renderer/dac. Would be nice if it did. 

SERVER CLOSET (in office directly below living room stereo):NUC 7i5BNH with Roon ROCK (ZeroZone 12V on the NUC)>Cisco 2690L-16PS switch>Sonore opticalModule (Uptone LPS 1.2)>

LIVING ROOM: Sonore opticalRendu Roon version (Sonore Power Supply)> Shunyata Venom USB>Naim DAC V1>Witchhat DIN>Naim NAP 160 Bolt Down>Chord Rumor 2>Audio Physic Compact Classics. OFFICE: opticalModule> Sonore microRendu 1.4> Matrix Mini-i Pro 3> Naim NAP 110>NACA5>KEF Ls50's. BJC 6a and Ghent Catsnake 6a JSSG ethernet; AC cables: Shunyata Venom NR V-10; Audience Forte F3; Ice Age copper/copper; Sean Jacobs CHC PowerBlack, Moon Audio DIN>RCA, USB A>C. Isolation: Herbie's Audio Lab. 

Link to comment
On 4/2/2018 at 11:21 AM, octaviars said:

@warpeon

 

As the clean port is supposed to feed the streamer it should be placed right before it. In my system I would go from router to etherregen and connect my NUC with Roon ROCK on the dirty side of the etherregen and my SOtM sMS-200ultra on the clean streamer port.

 

 

Would it be advantageous to substitute your current setup ( NUC/Roon andSOtM streamer) with the Roon Nucleus+?  That way you only have one ethernet port (the optimized clean one) to use

in your Roon streaming network.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, wwc said:

Would it be advantageous to substitute your current setup ( NUC/Roon andSOtM streamer) with the Roon Nucleus+?  That way you only have one ethernet port (the optimized clean one) to use

in your Roon streaming network.

 

My understanding is that the Nucleus is an overpriced NUC ?

And you would if possible hide both away and only use your streamer (=endpoint) next to your DAC. 

 

Anyway it’s a bit off topic. 

 

What we we don’t know yet is if there will be endpoints available with good fiber interfaces and if the Uptone Switch also will reclock the fiber output, so it can be looked upon as equal to that clean port. But my understanding is that it will not. 

Link to comment
21 hours ago, charlesphoto said:

Well, here's an idea: how about making a well made splitter adapter for after the clean port out?

 

Shall this be an active or passive device ?

 

If active, you purchase two EtherRegen. If passive, I’m not sure if it requires a gigabyte port in with 8 wires active, as a spitter can only use 4 wires and thus is either 10 or 100. 

 

 

A4D5F6DF-AC03-48C9-954B-F6AF2EA378F3.jpegØ

46738F2E-FED6-402F-BC7F-A882D39ACAAB.jpeg

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

 

My understanding is that the Nucleus is an overpriced NUC ?

And you would if possible hide both away and only use your streamer (=endpoint) next to your DAC. 

 

 

As the Nucleus+ is a combined server/streamer, I think it's a comparable price to a NUC server/SOtM streamer combo.

 

Wouldn't it be optimal to use a single unit like Nucleus+ from the single "clean" EtherRegen switch port rather than two ports (one being "dirty" for a separate server and streamer  ?   That is, I understand your setup correctly...

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

 

Shall this be an active or passive device ?

 

If active, you purchase two EtherRegen. If passive, I’m not sure if it requires a gigabyte port in with 8 wires active, as a spitter can only use 4 wires and thus is either 10 or 100. 

 

 

A4D5F6DF-AC03-48C9-954B-F6AF2EA378F3.jpegØ

46738F2E-FED6-402F-BC7F-A882D39ACAAB.jpeg

Passive I suppose. Isn't 10/100 enough for the rends and most music streaming?

SERVER CLOSET (in office directly below living room stereo):NUC 7i5BNH with Roon ROCK (ZeroZone 12V on the NUC)>Cisco 2690L-16PS switch>Sonore opticalModule (Uptone LPS 1.2)>

LIVING ROOM: Sonore opticalRendu Roon version (Sonore Power Supply)> Shunyata Venom USB>Naim DAC V1>Witchhat DIN>Naim NAP 160 Bolt Down>Chord Rumor 2>Audio Physic Compact Classics. OFFICE: opticalModule> Sonore microRendu 1.4> Matrix Mini-i Pro 3> Naim NAP 110>NACA5>KEF Ls50's. BJC 6a and Ghent Catsnake 6a JSSG ethernet; AC cables: Shunyata Venom NR V-10; Audience Forte F3; Ice Age copper/copper; Sean Jacobs CHC PowerBlack, Moon Audio DIN>RCA, USB A>C. Isolation: Herbie's Audio Lab. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, wwc said:

As the Nucleus+ is a combined server/streamer, I think it's a comparable price to a NUC server/SOtM streamer combo.

 

A Nucleus is no more server/streamer than a regular NUC. There is nothing special going on with the USB output on a Nucleus that is USB straight out from the NUC board. Before I bought a SOtM sMS-200ultra I run my NUC as server/streamer to my DAC.

 

805ffa1b-82e4-45e8-bbc1-81ed20905cab.jpe

 

Roon built and sells the Nucleus for those who do not wish to build a NUC with ROCK them self and it is mounted in a passive chassi no more no less.

 

This got OT.

 

The thing with a etherREGEN is to isolate the endpoint/DAC from all the stuff going on in the network with servers, NAS, routers and so on. I think many will find all sorts of connections sounding best. Ethernet gizmos cleaning up things is the new thing, just look at all the stuff selling to clean up USB ;)

Main system
TAD D1000mk2, TAD M2500mk2, TAD CE-1, Ansuz Mainz 8 C2, Ansuz Darkz D-TC, 
Qobuz Studio -> Roon ROCK on NUC -> Uptone etherREGEN -> dCS Network Bridge -> AES/EBU -> DAC
HD Plex 200W PSU (4 rail for ISP fiber, router, etherREGEN and NUC)
 
Second system
Qobuz Studio -> Devialet Silver Phantom, Devialet Tree
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, wwc said:

As the Nucleus+ is a combined server/streamer, I think it's a comparable price to a NUC server/SOtM streamer combo.

 

Wouldn't it be optimal to use a single unit like Nucleus+ from the single "clean" EtherRegen switch port rather than two ports (one being "dirty" for a separate server and streamer  ?   That is, I understand your setup correctly...

 

The Nucleus is just a NUC in fancy clothes for people who couldn't be bothered to set one up themselves and have $ to burn. Like an off the shelf NUC it could certainly be used as a player/streamer but I think you'll get better performance with a stand alone rendered device like the rendu's. Even Roon say their Nucleus is really best as just a server. It's a turnkey plug and play solution for dealers to peddle at a premium price. Not sure about the topology you are trying to get at. 

SERVER CLOSET (in office directly below living room stereo):NUC 7i5BNH with Roon ROCK (ZeroZone 12V on the NUC)>Cisco 2690L-16PS switch>Sonore opticalModule (Uptone LPS 1.2)>

LIVING ROOM: Sonore opticalRendu Roon version (Sonore Power Supply)> Shunyata Venom USB>Naim DAC V1>Witchhat DIN>Naim NAP 160 Bolt Down>Chord Rumor 2>Audio Physic Compact Classics. OFFICE: opticalModule> Sonore microRendu 1.4> Matrix Mini-i Pro 3> Naim NAP 110>NACA5>KEF Ls50's. BJC 6a and Ghent Catsnake 6a JSSG ethernet; AC cables: Shunyata Venom NR V-10; Audience Forte F3; Ice Age copper/copper; Sean Jacobs CHC PowerBlack, Moon Audio DIN>RCA, USB A>C. Isolation: Herbie's Audio Lab. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, wwc said:

As the Nucleus+ is a combined server/streamer, I think it's a comparable price to a NUC server/SOtM streamer combo.

 

Wouldn't it be optimal to use a single unit like Nucleus+ from the single "clean" EtherRegen switch port rather than two ports (one being "dirty" for a separate server and streamer  ?   That is, I understand your setup correctly...

 

There is a long thread somewhere discussing the benefits of splitting computers, DAC’s and endpoints. 

 

Some (most?) advice against.

I think @barrows has many good posts about this topic. Search his posts. 

 

My personal opinion is to use SonicTransporter i5, as you then also get the possibility to use HQPlayer and most likely Roon extensions. (SW update soon V 2.6). 

 

I’m sure if you go for Nucleus, you will probably have a very good result as well. 

 

I don’t expect feeding both the SonicTransporter and the Endpoint with a clean port, (two EtherRegen) will have any benefit, but I could be wrong. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, charlesphoto said:

Passive I suppose. Isn't 10/100 enough for the rends and most music streaming?

 

Well only John can answer if the clean port will use 4 or 8 wires, but we know it already is a 100, so I assume it’s 4, and then a spitter can’t be used. 

 

Maybe also you can can create other unwanted issues as well, as you must be 100% sure the equipment you connect to the splitter doesn’t interfere with each other. 

 

I think you rather purchase 2 switches ?

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

 

Shall this be an active or passive device ?

 

If active, you purchase two EtherRegen. If passive, I’m not sure if it requires a gigabyte port in with 8 wires active, as a spitter can only use 4 wires and thus is either 10 or 100. 

 

 

A4D5F6DF-AC03-48C9-954B-F6AF2EA378F3.jpegØ

46738F2E-FED6-402F-BC7F-A882D39ACAAB.jpeg

 

Just to be clear gents, those so-called "splitters" do not create any new ports.  They just allow the use of one cable for two separate ports.  You have to put one of these at both ends of the cable--and have two Ethernet ports to connect to.  

Remember, just one IP address per port. 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

Some old stuff......

 

Any particular reason you are bringing up that discontinued project from 4 years ago?  

It would have worked and been great, but there is an undue amount of software coding involved, and our thinking--for other future projects--has evolved.

But that project has zero connection/relevance to our Ethernet switch.  9_9

Link to comment
11 hours ago, R1200CL said:

 

Shall this be an active or passive device ?

 

If active, you purchase two EtherRegen. If passive, I’m not sure if it requires a gigabyte port in with 8 wires active, as a spitter can only use 4 wires and thus is either 10 or 100. 

 

 

A4D5F6DF-AC03-48C9-954B-F6AF2EA378F3.jpegØ

46738F2E-FED6-402F-BC7F-A882D39ACAAB.jpeg

This is not really a splitter. Note all the wires stay separate. 10/100 takes 2 pairs and standard Ethernet cable has 4 pairs, thus two of the pairs are not used. This device interleaves the two separate 10/100 circuits and puts them on one cable, they stay two independent circuits.  The only reason for doing this is if you already have a single Ethernet cable in the wall and you want to run two 10/100 circuits, you have one of these on each end of the single cable, thus you get two separate circuits without having to run a new cable in the wall.

 

Note this only works for 10/100, gigabit uses all 4 pairs, thus there are no unused pairs in the cable.

 

John S.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, R1200CL said:

 

Well only John can answer if the clean port will use 4 or 8 wires, but we know it already is a 100, so I assume it’s 4, and then a spitter can’t be used. 

 

Maybe also you can can create other unwanted issues as well, as you must be 100% sure the equipment you connect to the splitter doesn’t interfere with each other. 

 

I think you rather purchase 2 switches ?

There is no such thing as a passive Ethernet Splitter, the only way to get data from one port to two ports is a switch. And even that doesn't logically send the same data to the endpoints, the software must send the data to one, then to the other. (It CAN be done if your protocol is using multicast packets, that is pretty rare and the software on both ends has to be written for it.)

 

The upshot is, there is no easy way to "duplicate" the single clean port, it needs to be a seperate port on the switch fabric. Doing this for our switch would essentially double the electronics, you couldn't even keep the same power supply, since it would take double the current to do that, there would be too much stuff to fit in the same box, so it would take a bigger case. The net result is that this switch with two clean ports would cost double what the single one costs, and force everybody to pay double when very few people really need two clean ports. If you really need two clean ports, get two. I'm certainly not going to spend the time and money to make TWO separate designs, one with 1 clean port and one with 2 clean ports. That is three times the effort of just doing the single clean port project.

 

John S.

Link to comment

@JohnSwenson

Alex has already stated that the SFP port will be on the ‘’dirty’’ side. 

 

Will adding better clock to the SFP port also raise the cost quite much ?

And if so, could it the be looked at as equal to the clean RJ45 port ?

 

Or is it just as simple that your post above with raised cost and more current applies to the SFP port as well ?

I guess a clean expensive optinal SFP module that can be ordered separately and field mounted is not an option either ?

 

Of cause there may not be any reason for doing this unless your others designs at a later stage will be upgraded with SFP ports. 

 

And we dont yet know if propper designed fiber interfaces would add much SQ. 

 

Link to comment
13 hours ago, R1200CL said:

@JohnSwenson

Alex has already stated that the SFP port will be on the ‘’dirty’’ side. 

 

Will adding better clock to the SFP port also raise the cost quite much ?

And if so, could it the be looked at as equal to the clean RJ45 port ?

 

Or is it just as simple that your post above with raised cost and more current applies to the SFP port as well ?

I guess a clean expensive optinal SFP module that can be ordered separately and field mounted is not an option either ?

 

Of cause there may not be any reason for doing this unless your others designs at a later stage will be upgraded with SFP ports. 

 

And we dont yet know if propper designed fiber interfaces would add much SQ. 

 

The switch fabric is already getting the same clock as the clean side, so I'm not sure what this is all about. The SFP cage in this switch was never designed to be a "clean" side port. Functionally it is the same as the other "dirty" side ports.

 

Since the switch fabric is getting a VERY low phase noise clock anyway, taking a signal in and out of two dirty side ports is essentially the same as other companies that are doing "audiophile switches". The SFP port is no different in this regard.

 

Sticking a copper module into the SFP port does NOT make it a clean port. The big special part about the clean port is reduction of clocking noise from upstream network devices, this ONLY applies to the clean port, NOT to any of the dirty ports and since the SFP port is just another dirty port, it does not apply to the SFP port.

 

Again I'm not quite sure what you are asking, adding another SFP port would again raise the price significantly, but not as much as another clean port. If you add a second clean port, then adding a second dirty SFP port would be trivial since you already have a bigger case and beefier PS etc.

 

Obviously I'm not explaining this properly, but I don't know how better to do it.

 

John S.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Solstice380 said:

My conclusion is that these are going to be cheap, right?  ?

 

Price is indicated in this thread first post. 

I wouldn’t say cheap, but if the the result of adding the EtherRegen in front of your last network device in the chain add a good lift in SQ, maybe the indicated price is OK.

 

Personally I rather woukd like to see first number start with the digit 2 ?

 

I’m still wondering if it instead woukd be better (and possible) or at least equal, to add the cleaning technology inside the UltraRendu ?

 

I don’t expect that to be answered. Only time, like at least a year from now can tell. 

 

What may could be answered is if we could expect the effects of the clean port to be dependent of how well the network interface in the reviving devices is done. 

Link to comment

@R1200CL There is a lot of room below the mentioned hope of <$500.  If it’s too close to that I might be better off getting an AQVOX or other.  Possibly not the nth degree of SQ as the single clean port but I really want to feed the NAAs for both the Lampi and the dCS.  I’ve already experienced the SQ bump from the SOtM clock input modded switch from the SMS200u, and it improved the SQ of Lampi that’s into the same switch. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Theobetley said:

So Superdad going to have anything at Axpona on this?

 

I did CES (and sometimes the Stereophile shows and Munich) for 10 years with Hovland Company.  Those were semi-worthwhile back then because we met with dealers and distributors there.

 

But with UpTone’s direct sales model—to people all over the world—small regional end-user shows like Axpona can be a colossal waste of time and money.  What, would we A/B a network switch in a hotel room?  Or sit at a booth display so people can walk up and touch a simple box that looks just like our UltraCap units?

 

While I’d enjoy meeting a bunch of our Midwest customers and chatting, it’s not like I’d have a staff of people to help out and trade off with all weekend.  And I would not even get to see the show myself.  So I’d rather stay home and keep the $10K of travel and show cost, and keep the prices of our products as low as we can.

 

Our products are sold with a 30-day, money-back guarantee (with no restock fee), and always the best way for someone to decide is to try in their own system!

 

All that said, I frequently will loan or sell products to other companies who wish to use them at a show—to improve the SQ in their room.  However, AXPONA is next weekend and EtherREGEN is not going to enter production until sometime this summer, so don’t expect to spot one in Chicago next week. 9_9

Link to comment

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...