Sonore opticalRendu

[matthias]

Just now, vortecjr said:

No one should fee like that have to do anything. The ultraRendu is great on it's own and this is just another option.  

 

I think the ultraRendu should also get some upgrades from the opticalRendu (besides all things "fiber" of course).

 

Matt

[vortecjr]

Don't let the matching case full you...these two things are very different inside. Besides if one is not into fiber optic then the micro/ultraRendu are perfect solutions as-is.    

[matthias]

3 minutes ago, vortecjr said:

Don't let the matching case full you...these two things are very different inside. Besides if one is not into fiber optic then the micro/ultraRendu are perfect solutions as-is.    

 

Maybe the opticalRendu outperforms the ultrarendu. 

But a new designed ultraRendu would outperform the existing ultraRendu as well.

This is my point, some people want the best, but they do not want fiber.

 

Matt

[vortecjr]

3 minutes ago, matthias said:

 

Maybe the opticalRendu outperforms the ultrarendu. 

But a new designed ultraRendu would outperform the existing ultraRendu as well.

This is my point, some people want the best, but they do not want fiber.

 

Matt

You can always buy the opticalRendu and use a cable Ethernet SFP module. Bamm...you are there!

[matthias]

2 minutes ago, vortecjr said:

You can always buy the opticalRendu and use a cable Ethernet SFP module. Bamm...you are there!

 

Haha, John wrote that this is not a good idea.........

 

Matt

[Arpiben]

5 hours ago, octaviars said:

 

No losses over shorter cables can be ignored in this case.

 

So a -3dBm output and 0.4 dB loss in the connectors will set down the signal to -3.4dB and thus it shoud be safe with a -3dBm input.

 

When I looked at FS.com the SFP modules I have it had a range from -9dBm to -3dBm output how will it lower the output?

 

In principle as soon as you keep the receive value within specification you have no issue. In case of higher receive levels the receiver is saturated and you degrade the bit error rate only. For such cases, optical attenuators are available, you will find them also in FS.com or with other providers.

For the values you mentioned no worries at all, in my workplace and most of Telecom centers monomode fibers are used like this.

 

[vortecjr]

9 minutes ago, matthias said:

 

Haha, John wrote that this is not a good idea.........

 

Matt

He said it’s was a very close second. 

[octaviars]

1 minute ago, Arpiben said:

For the values you mentioned no worries at all, in my workplace and most of Telecom centers monomode fibers are used like this.

 

I sent a email to FS.com regarding the exact SFP model I have to see what they say. If they say it is ok with 2m of cable between them I will use them as they are otherwise I will get attenuators to reduce the power.

[vortecjr]

4 minutes ago, Arpiben said:

 

In principle as soon as you keep the receive value within specification you have no issue. In case of higher receive levels the receiver is saturated and you degrade the bit error rate only. For such cases, optical attenuators are available, you will find them also in FS.com or with other providers.

For the values you mentioned no worries at all, in my workplace and most of Telecom centers monomode fibers are used like this.

 

That is a DIY solution...we are not going to recommend it. 

[matthias]

6 minutes ago, vortecjr said:

He said it’s was a very close second. 

 

He said the other solution is "significantly better", that is different to "very close".

 

Matt

[Arpiben]

1 minute ago, vortecjr said:

That is a DIY solution...we are not going to recommend it. 

 

It is your product and your recommendation, fair enough even if you are not the providers/manufacturers of SFPs.

As a side  note what you consider a DIY is what is commonly used in the industry.?

 

[vortecjr]

You are over thinking this:) He is talking relative differences and not global differences. If you don’t have optical that can’t be helped, but you still get all the other new features. 

[vortecjr]

1 minute ago, Arpiben said:

 

It is your product and your recommendation, fair enough even if you are not the providers/manufacturers of SFPs.

As a side  note what you consider a DIY is what is commonly used in the industry.?

 

We just need things that work in short distances without a fuss. 

[diecaster]

@JohnSwenson

 

What is the difference between an ultraRendu with the EtherREGEN and the opticalRendu?

 

Let's say my house is wired with all CAT5e. My audio rack has an ultraRendu fed by your EtherREGEN plugged into the RJ45 wall socket right next to the audio rack that goes to the main switch in the server closet. The ultraRendu Ethernet is plugged into the super duper quiet port. Oh, a Teddy Pardo LPS is being used to power the ultraRendu and the standard SMPS is used to power the EtherREGEN. This is "Setup #1".

 

Setup #2 is the opticalRendu with an optical SFP powered by the Teddy Pardo LPS. I have one of Sonore's copper to optical adapters plugged into the wall RJ45. 

 

Which would be the better setup? In other words, will is the opticalRendu with an optical SFP going to be better than an ultraRendu fed by the EtherREGEN?

[matthias]

4 hours ago, diecaster said:

@JohnSwenson

 

What is the difference between an ultraRendu with the EtherREGEN and the opticalRendu?

 

Let's say my house is wired with all CAT5e. My audio rack has an ultraRendu fed by your EtherREGEN plugged into the RJ45 wall socket right next to the audio rack that goes to the main switch in the server closet. The ultraRendu Ethernet is plugged into the super duper quiet port. Oh, a Teddy Pardo LPS is being used to power the ultraRendu and the standard SMPS is used to power the EtherREGEN. This is "Setup #1".

 

Setup #2 is the opticalRendu with an optical SFP powered by the Teddy Pardo LPS. I have one of Sonore's copper to optical adapters plugged into the wall RJ45. 

 

Which would be the better setup? In other words, will is the opticalRendu with an optical SFP going to be better than an ultraRendu fed by the EtherREGEN?

 

You should power the Sonore copper to optical and the etherRegen also with the same high quality power supplies like TP for the comparison.

 

Matt

[octaviars]

8 hours ago, vortecjr said:

That is a DIY solution...we are not going to recommend it. 

 

This might be a bit OT but I got an answer from FS.com. The LX modules they sell that goes up to 10km cable is ok with any length of cable as the output power is lower or equal to the input power.

 

[Music Enthusiast]

9 hours ago, matthias said:

 

Same for me.

I am not interested at all to go the "fiber" path.

I hope that the Ultrarendu will get some upgrade next year.

 

Matt

What has been your experience with high end streaming products? Please share a list of streamers/network configurations you have had personal experience with in your system. Because you share a lot of opinions, but never share anything about what you actually own. Or have owned in the past to have gained the personal hands on experience for your opinions to carry weight for others looking to base purchase decisions on. 

[Music Enthusiast]

7 hours ago, matthias said:

 

You should power the Sonore copper to optical and the etherRegen also with the same high quality power supplies like TP for the comparison.

 

Matt

Explain why it matters what power supplies are used upstream of the opticalRendu. From what I understand, electrical noise can not conduct through plastic, glass and light. Explain the setup you have personally experienced where this phenomenon has occurred. 

[Music Enthusiast]

12 hours ago, diecaster said:

@JohnSwenson

 

What is the difference between an ultraRendu with the EtherREGEN and the opticalRendu?

 

Let's say my house is wired with all CAT5e. My audio rack has an ultraRendu fed by your EtherREGEN plugged into the RJ45 wall socket right next to the audio rack that goes to the main switch in the server closet. The ultraRendu Ethernet is plugged into the super duper quiet port. Oh, a Teddy Pardo LPS is being used to power the ultraRendu and the standard SMPS is used to power the EtherREGEN. This is "Setup #1".

 

Setup #2 is the opticalRendu with an optical SFP powered by the Teddy Pardo LPS. I have one of Sonore's copper to optical adapters plugged into the wall RJ45. 

 

Which would be the better setup? In other words, will is the opticalRendu with an optical SFP going to be better than an ultraRendu fed by the EtherREGEN?

I happen to own a streamer with a fibre optic Ethernet input. And I can't for the life of me hear a single bit of difference between any components I swap upstream of the streamer. Switches, servers, you name it. And it's not because I'm hard of hearing. I could clearly hear the difference between switches, servers, and the supplies that power them when I used to use a streamer that has copper Ethernet inputs. 

 

And I can imagine the fibre implementation on the opticalRendu is at least as good. The only thing I can see affecting a setup with an opticalRendu is the supply powering it, and the miniGBIC module.Well that and if it's receiving enough throughput from the network setup. If not dropouts will be experienced.

 

 But of course let's not rule out expectation bias. That can make for real differences in the active mind of an audiophile. When they give placebo's to patients in hospitals, the list of side effects is no shorter than is experienced with actual medications. So take comfort in the fact that this phenomenon isn't something only limited to audiophiles. 

[vortecjr]

5 hours ago, Music Enthusiast said:

Explain why it matters what power supplies are used upstream of the opticalRendu. From what I understand, electrical noise can not conduct through plastic, glass and light. Explain the setup you have personally experienced where this phenomenon has occurred. 

Matt is just asking because he us curious and that’s is okay. 

[vortecjr]

4 hours ago, Music Enthusiast said:

I happen to own a streamer with a fibre optic Ethernet input. And I can't for the life of me hear a single bit of difference between any components I swap upstream of the streamer. Switches, servers, you name it. And it's not because I'm hard of hearing. I could clearly hear the difference between switches, servers, and the supplies that power them when I used to use a streamer that has copper Ethernet inputs. 

 

And I can imagine the fibre implementation on the opticalRendu is at least as good. The only thing I can see affecting a setup with an opticalRendu is the supply powering it, and the miniGBIC module.Well that and if it's receiving enough throughput from the network setup. If not dropouts will be experienced.

 

 But of course let's not rule out expectation bias. That can make for real differences in the active mind of an audiophile. When they give placebo's to patients in hospitals, the list of side effects is no shorter than is experienced with actual medications. So take comfort in the fact that this phenomenon isn't something only limited to audiophiles. 

Thanks for your feedback.

[Dutch]

6 hours ago, Music Enthusiast said:

I happen to own a streamer with a fibre optic Ethernet input. And I can't for the life of me hear a single bit of difference between any components I swap upstream of the streamer.

 

Well that would really be golden and could make Sonore’s optical to ethernet converter a great recipe to focus just on the renderer connecting to the DAC/DDC (and forget anything upstream). And of course when people like the sound of the OpticalRendu they would also no longer have to ‘worry’ about the chain that’s “upstream” of it.

 

People have reported that off the shelf FMC’s (eg. a TP-Link MC220L) do not yet accomplish this. I myself currently have two sets of TP-Link MC220L Gigabit Ethernet Media Converters with Cisco GLC-SX-MM Mini GBIC's and 20m LC-LC OM3 multi mode fiber optic cables to isolate my audio system from the rest of my network. Romaz’s suggested direct connection between music server and renderer (see the “novel way to massively ...’ thread) was and is clearly better. Still can’t explain why. In such a setup Uptone’s etherregen would find a great home.

 

We’ll have to wait and see what happens/which consensus forms when these devices are available and out in the wild and people start experimenting with them, revisiting older setups where they used to have an off the shelve FMC etc.

 

Exciting times, again, with Sonore and Uptone Audio both releasing their first active ethernet products!

[vortecjr]

42 minutes ago, Dutch said:

 

Well that would really be golden and could make Sonore’s optical to ethernet converter a great recipe to focus just on the renderer connecting to the DAC/DDC (and forget anything upstream). And of course when people like the sound of the OpticalRendu they would also no longer have to ‘worry’ about the chain that’s “upstream” of it.

 

People have reported that off the shelf FMC’s (eg. a TP-Link MC220L) do not yet accomplish this. I myself currently have two sets of TP-Link MC220L Gigabit Ethernet Media Converters with Cisco GLC-SX-MM Mini GBIC's and 20m LC-LC OM3 multi mode fiber optic cables to isolate my audio system from the rest of my network. Romaz’s suggested direct connection between music server and renderer (see the “novel way to massively ...’ thread) was and is clearly better. Still can’t explain why. In such a setup Uptone’s etherregen would find a great home.

 

We’ll have to wait and see what happens/which consensus forms when these devices are available and out in the wild and people start experimenting with them, revisiting older setups where they used to have an off the shelve FMC etc.

 

Exciting times, again, with Sonore and Uptone Audio both releasing their first active ethernet products!

That connection scheme just connects a noisy computer directly to an endpoint. If you follow the thread they then add everything and anything known to man kind downstream to try to improve it. Some of us just want a simple solution.

 

Have a look at this thread as well.

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/55216-sonore-systemoptique/

 

Anyway, thanks for the feedback and comments. 

[Dutch]

16 minutes ago, vortecjr said:

That connection scheme just connects a noisy computer directly to an endpoint. If you follow the thread they then add everything and anything known to man kind downstream to try to improve it. Some of us just want a simple solution.

 

Have a look at this thread as well.

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/55216-sonore-systemoptique/

 

Anyway, thanks for the feedback and comments. 

 

Thanks Jesus! I really hope that one day the “sanity” returns (saying this in a positive way), up is up again because I fully agree with you. I too would love nothing more than a simple setup where the not so intuitive ‘upstream optimizing’ (anything before the renderer) doesn’t matter anymore. Same for anything after the renderer until it connects to the DAC. Until then I’m stuck with the spaghetti, though not as extreme as some as I simply don’t have the space to hide it all away.

 

I wish you and your team all the best and success with the new products!

[vortecjr]

Those days have always been here though. In my living room I have two systems setup feeding my integrated amp. One is an original microRendu with a $200 USB DAC that is always ready to use. Sometimes when my friends and family come over for dinner I use the micro / DAC combo and it's always incredibly satisfying.