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

[lmitche]

1 hour ago, austinpop said:

 

Alex, I'm getting mixed messages here. Are the A and B side symmetric (in terms of SQ) or not? It sounds like you're saying that it's not, and for max performance/SQ,

• the A side should be used for the upstream (router, upstream switch, bridged server, etc)
• the single100Mbps port on the B side to the endpoint.

I recently posted a picture on another thread of my current setup, where I use 2 ports on what you would call the clean (or B) side: one to the endpoint/streamer, and one directly to the DAC. This enabled me to evaluate the benefit of the switch on an Ethernet DAC, and compare the Ethernet and USB inputs of the DAC, both paths benefiting from the switch. Here's the picture:

 

My thought on how to replicate this with the EtherRegen - in the fulness of time! - was to reverse the A and B side: connect the upstream to the single port on the B side, and then connect the streamer and DAC in my picture to 2 of the 4 ports on the A side.

 

It sounds like that is bass-ackward and would be a suboptimal use of the EtherRegen.

 

Please clarify?

One could of course use 4 etheregens between 1) router and Nas 2) Nas and server 3) server and endpoint 4) endpoint and DAC!

[austinpop]

1 minute ago, lmitche said:

One could of course use 4 etheregens between 1) router and Nas 2) Nas and server 3) server and endpoint 4) endpoint and DAC!

 

No, thank you!

[lmitche]

5 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

No, thank you!

Of course this would be ridiculously expensive, but if it wasn't, in theory it may be what you would want to do.

 

Testing two or more EtherRegens versus using the multi port switch side hub will be interesting.

[Superdad]

22 minutes ago, lmitche said:

One could of course use 4 etheregens between 1) router and Nas 2) Nas and server 3) server and endpoint 4) endpoint and DAC!

 

Please stop. 

 

P.S. Watch your mail box tomorrow Larry.  And it's not what you think...

[lmitche]

15 minutes ago, Superdad said:

 

Please stop. 

 

P.S. Watch your mail box tomorrow Larry.  And it's not what you think...

Will do!

[JohnSwenson]

2 hours ago, austinpop said:

 

Alex, I'm getting mixed messages here. Are the A and B side symmetric (in terms of SQ) or not? It sounds like you're saying that it's not, and for max performance/SQ,

• the A side should be used for the upstream (router, upstream switch, bridged server, etc)
• the single100Mbps port on the B side to the endpoint.

I recently posted a picture on another thread of my current setup, where I use 2 ports on what you would call the clean (or B) side: one to the endpoint/streamer, and one directly to the DAC. This enabled me to evaluate the benefit of the switch on an Ethernet DAC, and compare the Ethernet and USB inputs of the DAC, both paths benefiting from the switch. Here's the picture:

 

My thought on how to replicate this with the EtherRegen - in the fulness of time! - was to reverse the A and B side: connect the upstream to the single port on the B side, and then connect the streamer and DAC in my picture to 2 of the 4 ports on the A side.

 

It sounds like that is bass-ackward and would be a suboptimal use of the EtherRegen.

 

Please clarify?

Let me see if I can bring some clarity.

 

There are two types of "SQ degrading" influences the EtherRegen is designed to radically decrease: leakage, both high impedance and low impedance, and clock phase noise. The clock phase noise travels on the Ethernet signal itself (every edge coming out of any digital device caries the phase noise of the clock used to "clock out" that edge).

 

The very carefully chosen transformers on both sides play an important part in decreasing leakage. The active circuitry in the path across the moat adds a very major decrease as well. The result is that the leakage from A to B OR B to A is is decreased a huge amount. The decrease in leakage from one port to another on the A side is still quite significant but not nearly as much as when going from side to side.

 

The circuitry across the moat is designed to essentially eliminate the signal borne phase noise from one side to the other, it doesn't matter which direction, it works identically in both directions.

 

The circuitry between ports on the A side decreases these phase noise effects to some degree but not nearly as much as going from side to side.

 

There is ONE small difference between directions going across the moat:

The clock generator is on the B side, so the circuits on the B side get a "pristine" clock. The clock from the B side goes through a very special isolator to the A side. This isolator has extremely low additive phase noise, much lower than any other isolator I could find. (it aint cheap!) The clock on the A side has slightly worse phase noise than the clock on the B side because of this. Whether this is going to be audible, who knows. Remember all the decrease in leakage and external phase noise is still there.

 

Going from port to port on the A side should be better than any other switch out there, but going from side to side (either way) will be a whole new world.

 

Because the B side has a slightly lower phase noise clock it is usually better to have the B side port connected to the streamer etc.  But if you need to cross the moat the other way (such as using the SFP cage to drive optical into a streamer or DAC that has an optical input) that is also fine. The same decrease in leakage and external phase noise exists either way, the only difference is the slight increase in phase noise of the clock when going from B to A.

 

Because of this slight increase in phase noise when going from B to A, if you use a REALLY good external clock (such as a Ref10), you will only get the advantage of such a clock when connecting the B side to the streamer.

 

I hope this makes some sense.

 

John S.

[Jud]

27 minutes ago, JohnSwenson said:

The clock on the B side has slightly worse phase noise than the clock on the B side because of this.

 

You're going to want to edit this (I think to "The clock on the A side has slightly worse phase noise than the clock on the B side because of this," if I follow correctly).

[lmitche]

34 minutes ago, JohnSwenson said:

Let me see if I can bring some clarity.

 

There are two types of "SQ degrading" influences the EtherRegen is designed to radically decrease, leakage, both high impedance and low impedance, and clock phase noise. The clock phase noise travels on the Ethernet signal itself (every edge coming out of any digital device caries the phase noise of the clock used to "clock out" that edge).

 

The very carefully chosen transformers on both sides play an important part in decreasing leakage. The active circuitry in the path across the moat adds a very major decrease as well. The result is that the leakage from A to B OR B to A is is decreased a huge amount. The decrease in leakage from one port to another on the A side is still quite significant but not nearly as much as when going from side to side.

 

The circuitry across the moat is designed to essentially eliminate the signal borne phase noise from one side to the other, it doesn't matter which direction, it works identically in both directions.

 

The circuitry between ports on the A side decreases these phase noise effects to some degree but not nearly as much as going from side to side.

 

There is ONE small difference between directions going across the moat: The clock generator is on the B side, so the circuits on the B side get a "pristine" clock. The clock from the B side goes through a very special isolator to the A side. This isolator has extremely low additive phase noise, much lower than any other isolator I could find. (it aint cheap!) The clock on the B side has slightly worse phase noise than the clock on the B side because of this. Whether this is going to be audible, who knows. Remember all the decrease in leakage and external phase noise is still there.

 

Going from port to port on the A side will be better than any other switch out there, but going from side to side (either way) will be a whole new world.

 

Because the B side has a slightly lower phase noise clock it is usually better to have the B side port connected to the streamer etc, but if you need to cross the moat the other way (such as using the SFP cage to drive optical into a streamer or DAC that has an optical input) That is also fine. The same decrease in leakage and external phase noise exists either way, the only difference is the slight increase in phase noise of the clock when going from B to A.

 

Because of this slight increase in phase noise when going from B to A, if you use a REALLY good external clock (such as a Ref10), you will only get the advantage of such a clock when connecting the B side to the streamer.

 

I hope this makes some sense.

 

John S.

Hi John,

 

Wow, that post is perfectly clear. The EtherRegen sounds like quite an achievement as well! 

 

Thanks,

 

Larry

[austinpop]

40 minutes ago, JohnSwenson said:

Let me see if I can bring some clarity.

 

There are two types of "SQ degrading" influences the EtherRegen is designed to radically decrease, leakage, both high impedance and low impedance, and clock phase noise. The clock phase noise travels on the Ethernet signal itself (every edge coming out of any digital device caries the phase noise of the clock used to "clock out" that edge).

 

The very carefully chosen transformers on both sides play an important part in decreasing leakage. The active circuitry in the path across the moat adds a very major decrease as well. The result is that the leakage from A to B OR B to A is is decreased a huge amount. The decrease in leakage from one port to another on the A side is still quite significant but not nearly as much as when going from side to side.

 

The circuitry across the moat is designed to essentially eliminate the signal borne phase noise from one side to the other, it doesn't matter which direction, it works identically in both directions.

 

The circuitry between ports on the A side decreases these phase noise effects to some degree but not nearly as much as going from side to side.

 

There is ONE small difference between directions going across the moat: The clock generator is on the B side, so the circuits on the B side get a "pristine" clock. The clock from the B side goes through a very special isolator to the A side. This isolator has extremely low additive phase noise, much lower than any other isolator I could find. (it aint cheap!) The clock on the B side has slightly worse phase noise than the clock on the B side because of this. Whether this is going to be audible, who knows. Remember all the decrease in leakage and external phase noise is still there.

 

Going from port to port on the A side will be better than any other switch out there, but going from side to side (either way) will be a whole new world.

 

Because the B side has a slightly lower phase noise clock it is usually better to have the B side port connected to the streamer etc, but if you need to cross the moat the other way (such as using the SFP cage to drive optical into a streamer or DAC that has an optical input) That is also fine. The same decrease in leakage and external phase noise exists either way, the only difference is the slight increase in phase noise of the clock when going from B to A.

 

Because of this slight increase in phase noise when going from B to A, if you use a REALLY good external clock (such as a Ref10), you will only get the advantage of such a clock when connecting the B side to the streamer.

 

I hope this makes some sense.

 

John S.

 

Thanks John,

 

Now it all makes sense. Thank you for the cogent and detailed explanation. 

 

So it is indeed the case that theoretically, the B side is "cleaner," and the best use of this switch is to connect the upstream network to a single port on the A side, and the endpoint on the B side.

 

And if you're Larry, repeat this 4 times.

[Superdad]

24 minutes ago, Jud said:

You're going to want to edit this (I think to "The clock on the A side has slightly worse phase noise than the clock on the B side because of this," if I follow correctly).

 

Thanks Jud.  I fixed that and a couple other typos. Though I resisted my usual urge to bold face the most key and juicy sentences.  It's John's great post, not mine. 

[rickca]

OK so the EtherREGEN is symmetrical except for the fact that the B side is the native side of the clock generator.  I hope I have that right.

 

It sounds like there's no point to going optical after passing through the EtherREGEN in either direction since it already takes care of leakage and blocks upstream phase noise.  Is that also correct?

 

So if you have an EtherREGEN, an opticalRendu would have to outperform an ultraRendu for reasons beyond just having an optical interface.

[rickca]

2 hours ago, Superdad said:

I don't know how else to say it/prove it short of punishing the schematic.

You might want to publish the schematic. 

[Superdad]

1 hour ago, rickca said:

OK so the EtherREGEN is symmetrical except for the fact that the B side is the native side of the clock generator.  I hope I have that right.

It sounds like there's no point to going optical after passing through the EtherREGEN in either direction since it already takes care of leakage and blocks upstream phase noise.  Is that also correct?

So if you have an EtherREGEN, an opticalRendu would have to outperform an ultraRendu for reasons beyond just having an optical interface.

 

That all sounds pretty correct. 

 

1 hour ago, rickca said:

You might want to publish the schematic. 

 

You mean "punish or perish" is not how the saying goes? No wonder my kids don't think of me as Superdad.  

But seriously, the only truly punishing schematic I've seen is the one for our UltraCap supplies.  That thing is bananas.

[mfaoro]

Superdad,

 

In lieu of constantly monitoring this thread, is the best way to find out about preorder/launch to sign up for the newsletter on your web site?

 

Or is really about monitoring this thread?

Michael

[Superdad]

34 minutes ago, mfaoro said:

In lieu of constantly monitoring this thread, is the best way to find out about preorder/launch to sign up for the newsletter on your web site?

 

Yes, entering your e-mail address on our web site to receive the newsletter is the easiest way. 

 

But don’t worry about receiving lots of emails from us (and I will NEVER share the list with any other companies).

New product launches are about the only time we ever send any “newsletters” to our mailing list. (We are just always too busy to do any promotional marketing. Plus I know that nobody enjoys receiving lots of emails, so I refrain from it until we have new products to offer.)

 

 What we do for launches is notify everyone via our mailing list (which you are already on if you ever bought anything from us) and via our forum—a few days before, when the product page is up but the “AddToCart” button is not shown.  We do not take orders until we know the exact date we plan to ship (that's once we have dates from our PCB and aluminum case companies).

 

We tell in the e-mail the date and time (always 9:00 a.m. PST, usually a Tuesday) that order taking will begin, and right at 9:00 orders pour in.  People set their alarms to get their orders in because the first run (150-250 depending upon my expectation for launch) often sell out in the first hour.

This is really the only manageable way for us to do these launches. No pre-pre-order lists.

[mfaoro]

Perfect. Thank you Superdad. 

[PYP]

Using an Acoustic Revive RLI-1 isolator (isolation transformer + choke coil).  A few observations:

• Noise enters via the ethernet connection
• a better-than-generic ethernet cable improves the sound
• there is room for further improvement vs. the AR isolator

So, looking forward to trying EtherRegen.  This site has a somewhat helpful graph:  https://www.lotusgroupusa.com/lan-isolator.html  Thought it would be OK to post in this thread since the AR is NOT a competitor for the EtherRegen, which is clearly an all-out effort to fix the noise problem.

[Superdad]

8 hours ago, PYP said:

This site has a somewhat helpful graph:  https://www.lotusgroupusa.com/lan-isolator.html  

 

Hi:

Actually I think their fuzzy graphs are very deceptive.  Look closely at all the settings and you'll see that its the bandwidth frequency that differs and not the scale.  Also, it is entirely unclear what they are measuring.  Is that a leakage test?  It sure is not a noise test--of what? [As an aside and in general I loath the way so many companies and audiophiles toss around the tern "noise" so generically. It is about as specific as the terms "food", "germs", or "fuel." ] 

Plus $275 seems like an awful lot to pay to just add an $2 inductor to a RJ45 mag-jack (they say that’s basically what the did).

And people need to think about what that class of isolators are actually designed to do and what one does or does not want to filter from the Ethernet signal. Remember, depending upon what bandwidth you look at, the "noise" is the signal!

 

I'll not get too far into it here (besides, JS is more qualified to speak about it), but I will say that such "isolators," including the linked AR and the more reasonably priced units from EMO Systems and Baaske Medical are primarily medical environment safety devices to prevent passage of large voltage spikes and to reduce leakage currents (the latter indeed a good thing for audio systems), though a purposely designed switch can readily accomplish the latter without much extra cost (even see the couple of specific $20 Netgear switches that John confirmed will shunt external leakage if grounded).

 

Hope everyone is having a great weekend. I've just caught up with virtually all my e-mail so I'm in a good mood. Think I'll go outside and wash the car before my trip to the Bay Area.  

Ciao!

--Alex C.

 

[PYP]

4 hours ago, Superdad said:

Plus $275 seems like an awful lot to pay to just add an $2 inductor to a RJ45 mag-jack. 

 

Well...I didn't mention that it came with an origami crane (it is a Japanese company).   You might want to think about something similar to include with the EtherRegen.  Perhaps a miniature bald eagle?   

[nonesup]

My experience with an EMO 70 HD, is that it "kills" the emotion of music

[PYP]

3 hours ago, R1200CL said:

I think something with silk will be quite revolutionary. Fantastic measurements.

 

3 hours ago, nonesup said:

My experience with an EMO 70 HD, is that it "kills" the emotion of music

 

I have the older version of the RLI-1 (have used it for years) and have not heard the latest.  Some think that the earlier version dulled the music, similar to the comment from nonesup regarding the EMO.  That doesn't happen in my system, so I continue to use it while I await the EtherRegen.  Given what the RLI-1 does in my system (increased clarity, more refined HF and greater LF), I'm stoked to try the EtherRegen.  

[skatbelt]

On 4/28/2019 at 1:23 PM, nonesup said:

My experience with an EMO 70 HD, is that it "kills" the emotion of music

 

So not my experience! I have a Emo Systems EN-70HD between Roon server (Uptone LPS-2 modded Mac Mini) and dCS Network Bridge and it only changes things for the better.

[Superdad]

1 hour ago, skatbelt said:

So not my experience! I have a Emo Systems EN-70HD between Roon server (Uptone LPS-2 modded Mac Mini) and dCS Network Bridge and it only changes things for the better.

 

That's great--and indicates you will truly appreciate the EtherREGEN in your system. 

 

Using that tiny $194 EMO EN-70HD isolator is simply adding another set of pass-through Ethernet transformer cores (and a TVS diode for spike protection) to your line.  And it is just a single core per wire pair. Here is the graph and schematic for it:

 

The return loss specs are okay, probably not significantly different to performance of the ports on the EtherREGEN. Probably helpful in reducing some leakage--and likely why you hear a bit of a difference with it.

 

Remember, each wire of every RJ-45 Ethernet port in the world is wired directly to at least one transformer (set of tiny coils/cores).  (Sometimes those are integrated into each jack, sometimes they are in a separate magnetics module on the circuit board immediately behind the jacks.) The magnetics network of each jack will typically have 2-8 cores.  The really good (more expensive) ones--like what we are using in the EtherREGEN have 12 cores. Below is the one we are using.  Keep in mind the below shows just one port's worth of magnetics--3 cores per wire pair--and this is repeated on all 5 copper ports of the EtherREGEN.

 

 

 

Of course this is not the same as actually putting the signals though differential digital isolators and flip-flop with separate clocking and power domains--the key uniqueness of EtherREGEN. 

[nonesup]

I just hope that what EtherRegen does for sound is radically different from what EMO 70HD does.

[so-no-mah]

Hi Alex, 

 

Any updates?

 

Andy