Jump to content
IGNORED

Sonore opticalRendu


Recommended Posts

On 7/7/2019 at 9:54 PM, vortecjr said:

Earlier in this thread we talked about using a SFP to RJ45 Copper Module for use with an opticalRendu or opticalModule. Internally these SFPs are much more complicated compared to an optical SFP, but could be useful for some. This is one I having tested it here with my units and works well.

 

https://amzn.to/2YFb8FF

 

107528208_ScreenShot2019-07-07at3_52_26PM.png.f45e37eae4c9cc9a73d8786ac6a28fd6.png

 

 

How does the oR sound with this one in comparison to optical SFP?

Thanks

 

Matt

"I want to know why the musicians are on stage, not where". (John Farlowe)

 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Summit said:

 

Don’t feel bad, I am also at lost why someone would want to buy an opticalRendu and then not use it for optical transmission 😕.

Some people may not want to take advantage of optical since it requires some additional components and installation cost. This scheme also allows people the opportunity to phase things.

Link to comment
19 hours ago, vortecjr said:

It sounds fantastic, but I leave this up to you guys. 

 

Did someone compare SQ of Ethernet SFP vs. Optical SFP into the oR?

Maybe I missed the post?

Thanks

 

Matt

 

"I want to know why the musicians are on stage, not where". (John Farlowe)

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, vortecjr said:

No one has ventured to try it yet:)

 

No one?

@JohnSwenson posted about the technical POV and his ranking on page one of this thread.

I think it is a VERY interesting topic.

I suppose that Ethernet SFPs from different manufacturers sound differently.

 

Matt

"I want to know why the musicians are on stage, not where". (John Farlowe)

 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, matthias said:

 

No one?

@JohnSwenson posted about the technical POV and his ranking on page one of this thread.

I think it is a VERY interesting topic.

I suppose that Ethernet SFPs from different manufacturers sound differently.

 

Matt

Yes we talked about it, but I just posted the compatible SFP. Charles tried it, but his SFP was not compatible. Clearly the optical SFPs have an advantage and are the intended solution. This RJ45 connection scheme is just a curious side thought.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, vortecjr said:

This RJ45 connection scheme is just a curious side thought.

 

When SQ is clearly superior to uR then I think it is a great starting point for oR.

Later on one can upgrade to oR with oM.

But someone should compare Ethernet SFP to Optical SFP into oR.

 

Matt

"I want to know why the musicians are on stage, not where". (John Farlowe)

 

Link to comment
58 minutes ago, matthias said:

 

When SQ is clearly superior to uR then I think it is a great starting point for oR.

Later on one can upgrade to oR with oM.

But someone should compare Ethernet SFP to Optical SFP into oR.

 

Matt

Hi,
This has been an idea for a couple of weeks, will finally receive a ethernet sfp to the OR today or tomorrow.
Will report on the results in a few days.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, matthias said:

 

When SQ is clearly superior to uR then I think it is a great starting point for oR.

Later on one can upgrade to oR with oM.

But someone should compare Ethernet SFP to Optical SFP into oR.

 

Matt

Hi,
This has been an idea for a couple of weeks, will finally receive a ethernet sfp to the OR today or tomorrow.
Will report on the results in a few days.

Update, literally just got it:

Update 2: took me about 2 seconds to conclude that I prefer copper over optical ethernet, the "thin" sound seems to be gone. Well, I will hold off further comments for a few days.
IMG_0538.thumb.jpg.d0ab6705a558ed1f125e9da99f775d0c.jpg

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Metnoc said:

Update 2: took me about 2 seconds to conclude that I prefer copper over optical ethernet, the "thin" sound seems to be gone. Well, I will hold off further comments for a few days.
IMG_0538.thumb.jpg.d0ab6705a558ed1f125e9da99f775d0c.jpg

 

Great,

looking forward to your impressions.

Which SFP do you have exactly?

 

Matt

"I want to know why the musicians are on stage, not where". (John Farlowe)

 

Link to comment

Hello!

 

I would like to know more about opticalRendu and 9V PSU. The unit itself is marked as 6-9 VDC, but I`ve read here that 9V is "not recommended" or "not recommended in hot environments". I have Keces P8 PSU. It`s lowest output is 9V (actually display shows 9,1V).

 

What exactly that "not recommended" 9V will do? I understand how regulators work and opticalRendu will be warmer with 9V than with 7V. And that leads to what? SQ downgrade, shorter unit lifespan, dangerously hot case? Or it is just few degrees warmer and that`s all?

 

Can I safely use opticalRendu with my 9V PSU, assuming it would be plugged in 24/7?

 

Thank you.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Metnoc said:

Is it impossible that my points are actually valid in a sense that optical might remove something which it shouldn't? 

In a sense, yes, it is impossible.  But, also: my post was not meant in any way to suggest that your observations are "wrong"-I took this observation as a starting point to jump off into a larger discussion of how audiophiles evaluate system changes, and the pitfalls that we all face when doing so, especially when the only criteria are subjective.

To reiterate, any change in a System may require System adjustment to get the most out of the change: if the sole action is just changing a single thing, without readjusting the System to accommodate that change and get the most out of it, then one is not really getting a complete understanding of what is going on, and how to get the most out of the system.  This was the larger point which I was trying to make.

 

As to the technical side of an optical interface, it is indeed impossible that an optical interface is"removing something" which a copper Ethernet interface does not.  Both systems are bit perfect, and both deliver the exact same data to the Renderer. As far as the technical side of this goes, the difference between an optical interface and a copper interface is that the optical interface delivers less Network based noise to the Renderer.  Now what this lower noise level does in the an individual System context in terms of subjective outcomes will vary from System to System, and it is to be expected that different users, in different Systems, will have different outcomes (different DACs respond differently to different levels and spectra of noise on their input).  But I would suggest that from a technical standpoint, less noise is better than more noise.

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment

In my  system now I have two ways to connect the Opticalrendu. One from my STi7 ethernet to opticalmodule, feed by an Uptone LPS 1.2, and then optical to oR. The other straight optical from optical output of my new cisco switch sg 350.

Well, I supposed that the first way using optical module was the best for the better  clock of the oM. But yesterday I tried the direct optical connection from the Cisco switch and the overall SQ was clearly better. A sound more clear, fluid with a better tight bass and better resolution at low levels.

I acquired the Cisco switch because it is recommended by Merging for Ravenna protocol of my second dac, merging Anubis. When I use the oR it is for an Holo Audio Spring 2. The Anubis is directly connected to Ethernet and there is no need of oR. But here the opticalmodule is great: I use in reverse way from Cisco switch optical output to oM and the to the Anubis by Ethernet. Here oM change completely the SQ of the Anubis isolating from noise and make it really a great dac. This is my optical experience 😃

Link to comment
3 hours ago, barrows said:

I would be very careful about what conclusion you draw from this initial test.

 

This observation brings up a topic I have been thinking about a lot lately.  We have audio Systems, and the important thing to remember here is that it is a System, of interacting components.  In evaluating System changes it is of prime importance to understand that often, a change, may require adjustment of the entire system to accommodate the change.  It is not unusual for an audiophile to make a change in a given system, expecting increased resolution, by dropping in a new component (or cable, or etc) only to find that the new component does not result in the expected result, instead resulting, perhaps, in a tonal balance change like @Metnoc reports here.  The first question I would ask is: first forget about tonal balance for second, and explore the original question: did the change result in increased resolution?  At high levels of system performance, determining if there is increased resolution can be difficult at first, especially if there is (now) an obvious difference in tonal balance.  I find the best way to look for resolution differences is in terms of low level details: "listen, that percussion instrument deep in the background there which was just an indistinct clicking sound before is now most definitely a wood block, I can hear the "woodiness" of it",  or is the layering of the soundstage depth more distinct, or is the ambience or air around instruments more easily determined... etc.  These examples are very clear ones of increased resolution.  Forget about tonal balance for now.  Why, one may ask?  Because increased resolution, in a system which was tuned to have appropriate tonal balance previously, will often result in a slight tilt upward of tonal balance.  It is a System!  

We already know that the frequency response of an Ethernet Renderer such as the opticalRendu is flat-indeed the opticalRendu is not really changing the tonal balance, this change is just resolving more detail, or less detail (due to lower or higher noise).  Higher resolution will also result in a more precise rendering of transient edges, which is very likely to create the impression of a tilted up tonal balance (in a system optimized for the previous level of performance).  Expecting to just drop in a new component, and have everything be perfect, without re-tuning the System to suit the new level of resolution is not the way to get the best sound quality: this approach often leads to endless changes in components and a reduction in resolution as one tries to balance the tonal qualities with component changes (for example, adding a "warm" sounding cable to tame the system, actually that cable is "warm" because it rounds transient edges, decreasing resolution).  Most competent audio components (OK, excepting some loudspeakers) these days already have a flat frequency response; they do not really alter tonal balance.

If a component change results in a tonal shift, I would not at first blame the component change: first I would adjust the system to bring the tonal balance back to even (a simple RTA app on a phone or tablet can confirm frequency response at the listening position and is a helpful starting place for this).  Tonal balance can be adjusted quite a bit with simple changes to loudspeaker placement, for example.  It might just require a slight change in speaker toe in, or, placing speakers a little closer to walls will warm things up, as well as bringing them closer together (better coupling between woofers and midrange).  I am not going to go into a whole treatise on loudspeaker placement here-there is plenty of information available.  Maybe a change in the digital filter might be tried as well.  In worst case scenarios, a new component, with objectively higher performance, may reveal a more serious problem with another component in the system (although this is more rare in my experience than something which just needs a different tuning).

Good reviewers, there seem to be fewer and fewer of these around (the late Harry Pearson comes to mind) understand these details of evaluating a component within a system context, and the really good ones know to adjust the system to suit the new sound before evaluating the component, in order to really get down to what the component under review can do when the system is properly optimized to suit.

Really insightful and important points, Barrows. These are known as audio "systems" for a very good reason and there are, as you note, many, many implications when making ANY change to a system. It is neither simple, easy, or quick to discern, understand and make the adjustments to fully integrate a single item into the whole. 

 

JC

Link to comment
22 hours ago, barrows said:

In a sense, yes, it is impossible.  But, also: my post was not meant in any way to suggest that your observations are "wrong"-I took this observation as a starting point to jump off into a larger discussion of how audiophiles evaluate system changes, and the pitfalls that we all face when doing so, especially when the only criteria are subjective.

To reiterate, any change in a System may require System adjustment to get the most out of the change: if the sole action is just changing a single thing, without readjusting the System to accommodate that change and get the most out of it, then one is not really getting a complete understanding of what is going on, and how to get the most out of the system.  This was the larger point which I was trying to make.

 

As to the technical side of an optical interface, it is indeed impossible that an optical interface is"removing something" which a copper Ethernet interface does not.  Both systems are bit perfect, and both deliver the exact same data to the Renderer. As far as the technical side of this goes, the difference between an optical interface and a copper interface is that the optical interface delivers less Network based noise to the Renderer.  Now what this lower noise level does in the an individual System context in terms of subjective outcomes will vary from System to System, and it is to be expected that different users, in different Systems, will have different outcomes (different DACs respond differently to different levels and spectra of noise on their input).  But I would suggest that from a technical standpoint, less noise is better than more noise.

I used optical ethernet for a couple of weeks, sounded tonally thin no matter burn in time.
Copper ethernet input on OR sounded right after 2 seconds.
Today it sounds even better.
Tonally rich in a natural and believable sense, perhaps not as low noise floor as with optical.
But as a whole I emphatically prefer copper over optical ethernet.
Furthermore I resent the idea that optical ethernet is universally the best solution and everyone who doesn't agree just likes to listen to a more noise. I'm not an engineer so I can't debate the technical aspects in great depth, but in my ears optical lowers the noise floor but something else that should be there also disappears in terms of timbre.
The sound of copper ethernet reminds me of why I almost always prefers copper cables over all other types, there is a certain warmth to it that silver plated copper cables often times lacks. I'm not saying copper ethernet sounds right and optical ethernet wrong, both are off in different ways.
But as I won't trade timbre for lower noise floor, copper ethernet is the way for me until there is something that actually sounds better.

Please don't try to convince me that optical ethernet makes my stereo sound as it should, in no way shape or for is that true. It just has some advantages over copper ethernet, but the reverse is true as well.

I trust my own ears, not some guy trying to explain that he has solved this or that issue.

Link to comment
23 hours ago, barrows said:

To reiterate, any change in a System may require System adjustment to get the most out of the change: if the sole action is just changing a single thing, without readjusting the System to accommodate that change and get the most out of it, then one is not really getting a complete understanding of what is going on, and how to get the most out of the system.  

Amen, a point of fact so often not addressed or misunderstood in pursuit of better SQ.  

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Metnoc said:

Please don't try to convince me that optical ethernet makes my stereo sound as it should, in no way shape or for is that true. It just has some advantages over copper ethernet, but the reverse is true as well.
I trust my own ears, not some guy trying to explain that he has solved this or that issue.

 

Okay, so then just use and enjoy your opticalRendu with the copper SFP module as you have.  There are a number of elements of the opticalRendu which are advancements over the ultraRendu, so there really is nothing to complain about there. Right? :D

Link to comment

It can be boiled down to this: best practice, and best for YOUR ears. Best practice will and should be based on sound science and testing and a higher than average positive random feedback. Your ears are based on your ears, and that's not a bad thing. Right now there are so many f%^*ing permutations of how to set up a streaming network, it makes one long for the days of good old differences in the RCA cables from the stereo to the CD player or turntable. So tune it to how you like it. 

 

I've found the opticalModule bridge to be nothing short of 100% transformative in my system. But that could be due to many factors, and it may not have as big a difference with higher end gear (or more?) Can't speak to the oR - I'm sticking with my mR 1.4 for now until I spy a killer deal on an ultraRendu.

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

Oh, I did try an RJ45 transceiver with a single oM and found it had many of the same qualities, but a bit hard and with some glare in the mids. two oM's more natural for my system. They take a couple of weeks to burn in as well. Was really worried about he bass response at first but they've settled in nicely.  

 

Waiting on my UltraSupply now. Build me a good one @barrows. ;)

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

@charlesphoto, Just shipped it, should be there soon.

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

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...