Sonore opticalModule v0.95 - discontinued

[jabbr]

4 hours ago, Frojo said:

 

This is a bit disappointing given the previous indication (in the initial post) was 'MSRP 199'.......

 

Sheesh, they are making this, its not mass production ...

[jabbr]

6 hours ago, Frojo said:

 

I am not griping and i agree with your comments. It was an expression of disappointment, no more.

I was somewhat irked by Jabbr's response given that Jesus had already addressed my comment- he didn't seem unduly upset

 

I have no relationship with Sonore and speak only for myself. Folks around here know that I can and will give my blunt but hopefully objective opinions. I have been an early and strong proponent for the use of optical Ethernet in general and specifically for audio. I am thrilled that Sonore is introducing products at this price point. This is a bargain at $250 and your other option is a $50 throwaway FMC. My own equipment was $15,000-$20,000 range when it was introduced but can be had for a bargain on eBay. There is no competition to this (opticalModule) and I’m thrilled that Jesus is able to bring the product to market at a price that will promote widespread usage.

 

Not that it is hand assembled (I hope not!) rather that it has to be designed, assembled packaged, marketed, sold & supported. 

[jabbr]

14 hours ago, vortecjr said:

Those blue optical cables look Art Deco Nice work!

To keep it all straight, particularly in my attic, I use aqua exclusively for multimode cable (OM3) and yellow exclusively for single-mode. 

[jabbr]

12 hours ago, skatbelt said:

 

Yes, I know what fiber optic does but I don't think you got the point that I don't want a unit like the opticalModule, the EtherREGEN or any other solution within the (power)cluster behind the isolation transformer. To my understanding I can keep the EtherREGEN out of this cluster and have complete galvanic isolation.

 

The opticalModule is an FMC. Keep it outside of your isolation transformer and send the fiberoptic cable in. That way you get complete electrical isolation. That’s how I do it.

 

My view of the EtherRegen, but not speaking for @Superdad, it that it would be best used to accept a fiber connection from outside the isolation transformer and relay to an RJ-45 Ethernet connection also within the isolation transformer power domain.

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, vortecjr said:

I'm not followng this logic. The optical signal on the opticalModule is 100% galvanically isolated. We also recommend a separate power supply for the opticalModule and linear power supplies have built in isolation via their transformers.  

 

Transformers are used to block common mode noise (secondary neutral to ground).

 

Interwinding capacitance allows common mode noise to pass through, why the little tiny transformers in copper Ethernet PHY allow common mode noise into boards and out the USB and into the DAC. 

 

Well made networking equipment, like yours, does not need a special isolation transformer before the power supply to function, nor will it necessarily reduce jitter — at least as measured with the high end equipment. 

 

Your opticalModule can happily sit outside the isolation transformer and send it’s optical signal in. 

 

If the opticalModule sits inside the transformer, then pesky common mode noise might find its way into the audio system — you now share a ground and so the complete galvanic isolation is broken. 

 

The isolation transformer blocks common mode noise from your fridge  or cheap SMPS in the house etc from getting into your power supply and the good power supplies in the audio system, opticalRendu etc block differential mode noise. 

 

Thats the short story, ha ha ha!

[jabbr]

8 minutes ago, vortecjr said:

Thanks, I was thinking about the receiving opticalModule not the transmitting opticalModule.

 

Also, remember the opticalModule is bi-directional and be used optical in and Ethernet out so you want a linear supply powering the receiving opticalModule. 

 

Ok then yes, receiving inside iso transformer power zone. That way there is still no metal penetrating the iso transformer 😉

[jabbr]

I agree that having the Rendu implement flow control through standards (pause-frames) is the ideal solution.

 

Regarding this thread, is there a concern that non-Rendu low powered devices when used with the OpticalModule, won’t send pause-frames because the OpticalModule says it doesn’t support?

[jabbr]

On 9/8/2019 at 4:47 PM, vortecjr said:

No real concern because the devices supported would be 1000 speed.  

 

I mean what about another low powered endpoint eg one of the Solid Run cubes or anything similar which can’t handle full 1g and would need to send out pause-frames. 

 

If using the opticalModule would that device (or similar generic) fail to send pause-frames also?

[jabbr]

22 minutes ago, vortecjr said:

If it's a DIY solution then they are responsible for the fix. If it's a professional solution then they are responsible for the fix. Just the same with all FMCs that are not switches inside it has to be dealt with correctly

 

Ok and to be clear, this issue is not isolated to HQPlayer but uPnP/DLNA is subject as well.

 

This issue does not apply to all FMCs, for example: https://www.perle.com/products/10-100-1000-media-converters.shtml explicitly stars that it supports 802.3xy

[jabbr]

On 9/8/2019 at 6:09 PM, vortecjr said:

This flow control discussions has been about NAA. 

 

To to be sure it needs to be tested.

Try mounting a network drive / SMB

Play a DSD256 (or 512 if you have one) directly on a Rendu without the fix — and connected to an opticalModule..

[jabbr]

On 3/17/2020 at 6:56 PM, barrows said:

The reason for this is in these days of objective/subjective wars, one can come under attack from any side (or both), and this is not a good position for a manufacturer's representative to be in (damned if you, damned if you do not).  I find the whole "dichotomy" rather ridiculous, as well as the apparent need to be "right", after all, measurements are critical to designing the best possible gear, but so is listening, and these two things are hardly in opposition to each other!

I, for one, would welcome your impressions. I think, maybe, maybe, I have a very slight preference for single mode, but then again I didn’t test blinded. I did wire my house single mode because it scales up ie same fiber for 40, 100 and up Gbe ... also the electronics are better so ... I wouldn’t be surprised if some cheap generic SFP modules are noisier than genuine or Finisar or Avago modules but who knows. 

[jabbr]

1000Base-ZX is not a typical single mode module — be sure it is: 1000base-LX for single mode (L for long)

[jabbr]

15 hours ago, alexreusch said:

OK. But then I would suggest you to try an original Cisco SFP, as this is the real deal:

https://www.connection.com/product/cisco-1000base-zx-sfp-smf-1550nm-dom-transceiver/glc-zx-smd/15392887

 

Jokes aside, using single mode over short distances can be counter productive. When shorter distances of single mode fiber (SMF) are used, it might be necessary to insert an inline optical attenuator in the link to avoid overloading the receiver. Keep in mind: single mode fiber is made for very long distance situations.

 

That's a ZX! -- not a typical LX which is really the only singlemode that should be used. No need for attenuators with 1000base-LX ... of course you can get a meter, like I have ... mostly to be sure I haven't borked a fiber after I've threaded through my ceiling, to my attic, down a laundry chute to the basement and then across the basement ceiling to the server room  You can also use end-end keystone jacks like a normal network wiring ... for those of you who might ever want to run parallel lanes frequency multiplexed via a single duplex single mode cable, single mode has the future proof capability, and the cables are cheaper