The EtherREGEN thread for various network, cable, power experiences and experiments

[Savolax]

I ordered few custom cables from local RF dealer when BG7TBL was hot topic on the forum. Initially I was set on RG400 cable as per recommendation by Mutec in their REF10 manual but got interested upon seeing some alternatives that were available.

In the end experimenting with the cables I always found myself using the thickest, robust and with lowest attenuation with 100% copper core connector in the cable, Seatex 10 SHF 2 and Aircell 7, be it based on heard, specs or placebo.

 

There were also "higher spec'd"  cables (in regard to attenuation chart at 10MHz and up to Gigahertzes) such as Ecoflex 10 and Aircom Premium available but hesitated towards them due to core connector being aluminium instead of copper. Although I admit it would have been interesting to try one against the copper ones.

[JohnSwenson]

3 hours ago, barrows said:

Check out Pasternack.com for clock cables.  They offer a very wide variety of 50 ohm coax at varying levels of price and performance.  It might be interesting for an RF engineer to weigh in and suggest what properties one might be looking for in a 50 ohm coax cable for distributing 10-25 MHz clock signals.  What is important?  Shielding, VoP, attenuation, etc. as Pasternack makes some very high performance models (at correspondingly high price) and lesser models.  I recently purchased a SMA to SMA coax cable from them to distribute a 25 MHz clock.  I decided on a cable with silver clad copper center conductor of fairly high cross section, figuring the signal travels on the silver as a tube, basically, with a foamed PTFE dialectric, triple shielding, and FEP outer jacket, and 18 GHZ(!) maximum bandwidth, but of course I was not sure that this cable was the "best" choice.

Maybe @JohnSwenson can weigh in on coax cable selection and which properties are desirable for clock cables.  I would rather purchase from Pasternack and know exactly what I am getting than buying some "audiophile" clock cable, as they provide complete specs for every type of cable they use as they are a source for RF engineers.

Yep, I have lots of Pasternack cables, I can design what I want and they will build it for me just as I want.

 

The type of cable you want varies radically depending on the signal and use. For clock cables the three primary variables are: frequency, type of signal (sine or square) and length.

 

Sine wave:  extremely good shielding and fairly low bandwidth.

Square wave: extremely high bandwidth and medium shielding.

 

For a sine my favorite is the semi-rigid coax. The shield is literally copper tubing, but you have to "form it" into the path you want. You want the thin stuff, it bends fairly easily. The thin stuff has much lower bandwidth, but that is what you want for a sine! My favorite from Pasternack is PE-047SR. To use this put the boxes where you want them to be, then plan the route of the cable and measure the route carefully, include all the jogs etc. Order a cable with this exact length. This is actually fairly easy to work with, just get a wood dowel of 3/4 inch diameter and use that to form the bends. You can run a fairly long way with this since the shielding is so good.

 

For a square wave you want as high a bandwidth as you can get. Extreme shielding is not important. The LMR series coax is generally very good for this. But to get the really good bandwidth takes fairly thick cable, which does not bend all that well. Some diameters offer an "UltraFlex" version which is quite a bit more flexible but slightly lower bandwidth. I generally go for the UltraFlex and somewhat thicker, than standard thinner. The longer the cable the lower the bandwidth, there is no way to get around that. Shorter cables (say less than 6 feet) don't have much of a problem with this, but a 30 foot cable is going to show some degradation. Again figure out what you need and order a cable of that exact length. The really thick stuff does not bend very well and will tend to move boxes around unless they are bolted down. (or have bricks on top, a good use for those tungsten blocks people love to talk about)

 

For a sine extreme bandwidth actually hurts, but extreme shielding does not hurt a square as long as you are not doing it at expense of bandwidth.

 

When looking at cable specs look at the attenuation over distance at certain frequencies rather than the "maximum frequency" or some similar single number, no two manufacturers use the same method for determining this.

 

For example that thin semi-rigid cable says it has a maximum frequency of 40GHz, but that is only good for very short cables. So it actually does very well with a square wave but only for short cables (a foot or less). The LMR coax my have a lower max frequency, but would actually do better for a 10ft cable.

 

Because of this radically different requirements depending on sine or square don't take user reports to heart until you find out whether they are using sine or square and that matches your setup. If someone says their $1000 cable is vastly better but they have a square and you have a sine, it may not be the best choice for you.

 

I hope this brings a little bit of clarity to the situation.

 

John S.

[barrows]

Thanks @JohnSwenson!  I am distributing a sine wave clock signal, with a sine to square converter at the point of use.  The designer of this clock also recommends the semi rigid cable types.  I got a flexible cable to use first during set up, so I could plan exactly what I would need with the semi rigid cable for a permanent set up as they suggest that one should only bend the semi rigid cable to suit a single time. 

[Kenjamin0523]

Hi guys, I’m currently using Finisar FTLX1370W4BTL and Cisco GLC-LH-SMD. Cisco works fine with my EtherRegen(ER) while I have a problem with Finisar that I need to remove Finisar module on ER to active fibre connect whenever I turn my ER off and on. I dont have this problem with Cisco module when I turn it off and on.

is there any Finisar module which dont have the same problem as mine?

[R1200CL]

1 hour ago, Kenjamin0523 said:

is there any Finisar module which dont have the same problem as mine?

The FTLF1421P1BCL or FTLF1421P1BTL

[Johnnydev]

no problem here with all the sfp+ Modules that Adrian (afterdark) recommends. I have them all at home

[audiobomber]

On 4/7/2022 at 1:17 PM, Encore said:

You might want to try Ethernet over Power, i.e. through your electrical installation. In my system, this sounded better than wifi. It doesn't cost a fortune to try out.

I'm surprised that worked for you, because I've read from other sources that poweriline ethernet did not sound as clean as wi-fi.

 

I've spent quite a lot on power conditioners and power supplies. It seems counterintuitive to inject a high frequency ethernet signal into the 60Hz AC lines, so I won't give it a try, but thank you for posting your experience.

 

PS I don't feel disadvantaged by having to use wi-fi to my audio system. IMO can sound as good as ethernet or fiber when implemented well, and I have no reliability issues, even when streaming 4X DSD, DXD or 384kHz files.

[KIKIWILLYBEE]

Hi guys ,

good Sunday for all’s

 

pls , 

my advices , for semi rigid câble for Clock signal at 75ohms

1 mil spec grade option with Amphenol TMS professional quality : https://www.ebay.com/itm/133193839732?var=432539062784

2 other wise .Jp Oyiade silver 5N. Câble dc the classical DB 51o with Bnc plug’s in 75 ohms 

i use it with ER. And trivecta Afterdark clock 

 

your’s

willy 

[dbastin]

On 4/7/2022 at 11:19 PM, audiobomber said:

"ER Side B > wire > wifi > endpoint"

 

I don't understand, can you explain this please? How do you go from wire to wi-fi? How do you connect via wi-fi downstream of the ER? 

Sorry, I overlooked or missed your question.  I also realised I should have put

ER Side B > wire > WAP > endpoint.  Here is a longer description.

 

ER Side B > ethernet cable (copper) > Mikrotik mAP lite > .. wifi .. > Devialet Pro

 

Mikrotik mAP lite was chosen because it has 5v inpt (so hopefully less noisy regulators built in) and so is powered by a 5v USB powerbank and the only traffic connected to it is to/from the Devialet.  I also plug the other hole with a short USB C to USB A cable and insert AQVOX USB Detoxer QL2 - USB-A Terminator power cleaner jitter-ex.  I have WAP on another 'leg' of my network to access roon for control, it is here ... 

 

router > fibre > Ubiquiti EdgeSwitch > Cat 5e > WAP (TP link)

 

On 4/7/2022 at 11:19 PM, audiobomber said:

My exaSound PlayPoint streamer can receive wi-fi, but I found that moving the wi-fi reception upstream improved the sound. I added an extender with upgraded power supply, which receives wi-fi, but does not broadcast. The extender is connected via ethernet to the A side of my ER. The B side goes through a cable and LAN Isolator/Filter, to the PlayPoint. 

 

Let me see, are you saying you have ... wifi ... > Extender > copper> ER > copper > Playpoint.

 

I p[resume you can't run fibre to your audio room either.  Perhaps the Playpoint doesn't minimise noise from its wifi.  Or your extender may be noisy and thus the ER is providing benefit.    And you have a double isolation being wifi then MOAT (umm triple including the Playpoint ethernet isolation transformers).  But one thing is for sure, the ER clock and power regulation is superior to whatever is in the extender - and that is a very good idea!. 

 

Perhaps I should try a 2nd mAP as per

 

ER > copper > mAP1 > ... wifi ... > mAP2 > copper > Devialet,

ER > copper > mAP1 > ... wifi ... > mAP2 > copper > ER > copper > Devialet

 

Then I cold disable the Devialet wifi (which I hope would shut it down and any noise it generates).

 

Also, an idea I am going to do ... the mAP is so small and light it could be connected with e say 1 inch Cat6a UTP and 'hang' from a RJ45 port like a dongle. 

[dbastin]

On 4/8/2022 at 4:06 AM, Encore said:

 

OK, so with @GryphonGuy's help I got a couple of 1310 nm SFP modules and some single mode fiber optic cable.

 

In first instance, I have inserted it as shown in this diagram. From experimenting with Kapton tape on the earth connectors of Ethernet cables, I had established that the biggest improvement came from putting it on the 15 m long Ethernet cable that runs from my EoP outlet (probably some nasty SMPS in there).

 

So this cable goes in on the B side of the first eR. The Ethernet cable from the Roon core goes into the A side, so not quite ideal – it would have been better if I could connect both on the opposite site of the SFP port. But worth the try.

 

From the A side fiber optic goes to A side of the second eR. From the B side Ethernet cable goes to the streamer PC.

 

This gave a clear improvement. Transparency improved, making the soundstage feel bigger, I tend to turn the volume up more. Maybe the mids now feel a little recessed, something that is also a trait of my Emission Labs 300B XLS tubes. So maybe the sound from the DAC has become more balanced, exposing this character of the power tubes more than before.

 

In a funny way the sound has become almost too clean. Difficult to explain but especially at low volume the sound is a little less engaging. However, it is still early days, and I think the pros outweigh the cons. I don’t see myself be going back!

 

Some more experimenting is necessary, though. I want to try to replace the 15 meter Ethernet cable with fiber optical. However, that will move the SMPS of the first eR to a non-dedicated outlet. Difficult to predict what that will give. It gave an improvement to move the SMPS for the Macbook Pro away from the dedicated circuit breaker onto a regular one.

 

Looks like a good effort.  For what it's worth, something to consider - with the 15m run, either detach the shield from the ground at the downstream end or use UTP.  This might be better than inserting a FMC, its power supply, and fibre

 

Transparency improved, making the soundstage feel bigger, I tend to turn the volume up more. Maybe the mids now feel a little recessed, 

Difficult to explain but especially at low volume the sound is a little less engaging. 

 

I have had this a few times.  I suspect it is because there is a band of noise and distortion that has been removed making it more comfortable to play at higher volume., and higher volume helps to dig deeper into the sound and soundstage.

 

In a funny way the sound has become almost too clean.

 

Maybe what you were accustomed to was too dirty, and you had come to enjoy the noise.  Keep stripping away noise sources and you will probably hear more of the clean, including previously unheard details that bring natural-ness to the sound and its venue ... that is unless the overall tone needs re-balancing.

[zoltan]

1 hour ago, dbastin said:

 

ER Side B > ethernet cable (copper) > Mikrotik mAP lite > .. wifi .. > Devialet Pro

 

I have a feeling that in this set-up, you make the ER useless for two reasons. ER cleans the ethernet signal from electric and also reclocks the signal. Electric noise will not travel though wifi, so it doesn't matter. Secondly, the Mikrotik will reclock the signal again, as any network device in the chain and unless it has a better clock than the ER, it doesn't matter. I'm not even sure if reduced jitter makes any sense when we are talking about wifi. You should do your last suggested method, except that you won't make use of the first ER as I said above: 
ER > copper > mAP1 > ... wifi ... > mAP2 > copper > ER > copper > Devialet
BTW, I also have a Devialet (Expert D800) and I think the wifi is switch off when you program it that way.  

[Encore]

4 hours ago, dbastin said:

 

Looks like a good effort.  For what it's worth, something to consider - with the 15m run, either detach the shield from the ground at the downstream end or use UTP.  This might be better than inserting a FMC, its power supply, and fibre

 

Transparency improved, making the soundstage feel bigger, I tend to turn the volume up more. Maybe the mids now feel a little recessed, 

Difficult to explain but especially at low volume the sound is a little less engaging. 

 

I have had this a few times.  I suspect it is because there is a band of noise and distortion that has been removed making it more comfortable to play at higher volume., and higher volume helps to dig deeper into the sound and soundstage.

 

In a funny way the sound has become almost too clean.

 

Maybe what you were accustomed to was too dirty, and you had come to enjoy the noise.  Keep stripping away noise sources and you will probably hear more of the clean, including previously unheard details that bring natural-ness to the sound and its venue ... that is unless the overall tone needs re-balancing.

I have already detached the shield at the downstream end--that's what the Kapton tape does. And it did indeed give a sizeable improvement 🙂 I will be experimenting with getting rid of the 15 m Ethernet cable, in first instance by placing it closer to the EoP outlet, allowing a shorter run of better Ethernet cable. Later I also want to try to run optical from the router downstairs, circumventing the EoP.

 

I have had this a few times.  I suspect it is because there is a band of noise and distortion that has been removed making it more comfortable to play at higher volume., and higher volume helps to dig deeper into the sound and soundstage.

Exactly. But I think it's a combination with what I've always experienced when I have improved the digital chain: The frequency extremes become better. I.e. more weighty bass and crisper highs. In some cases I think the ear may pick this up as a more recessed midrange. This then prompts you to turn up the volume. And I think I just had to get used to it--I really dig it now! Listening to the Dune soundtrack, I was totally blown away yesterday 😆

 

[barrows]

8 hours ago, zoltan said:

Electric noise will not travel though wifi

If I understand John Swenson's explanation properly, accumulated clock phase noise products will be combined with the signal such that this noise does travel over both WiFi and optical Ethernet.  The Etheregen blocks this noise from upstream sources from A-B side.

[audiobomber]

10 hours ago, dbastin said:

Let me see, are you saying you have ... wifi ... > Extender > copper> ER > copper > Playpoint.

Almost. I also have a LAN filter between the ER and Playpoint.

10 hours ago, dbastin said:

 

I p[resume you can't run fibre to your audio room either.  Perhaps the Playpoint doesn't minimise noise from its wifi.  Or your extender may be noisy and thus the ER is providing benefit.    And you have a double isolation being wifi then MOAT (umm triple including the Playpoint ethernet isolation transformers).  But one thing is for sure, the ER clock and power regulation is superior to whatever is in the extender - and that is a very good idea!. 

Any cable from the network to my audio system is not feasible. I would say I have triple isolation; wi-fi, ER MOAT, LAN filter, or maybe quadruple isolation, as according to Uptone, the ER is actually two switches.

 

I have a friend who runs ethernet only, with dual Bonn Silent Angel  switches, Lumin U1 Mini, ENO LAN Isolator and Denafrips Gaya. Each step brought improvements. I don't know where the limit is for noise reduction. 

 

I have heard from several sources that wi-fi should be kept out of the streamer. I believe someone from Sonore, (maybe @barrows?), once said here that there would never be onboard wi-fi in a Sonore renderer.

 

My initial setup to test wi-fi in the Playpoint vs. upstream used a TP Link RE650 and did not include the ER. Still, this provided significant improvement. I now use a TP-Link 580D extender instead of the RE650, as the 580D accepts a linear power supply. The ER most definitely has a better clock.

10 hours ago, dbastin said:

 

Perhaps I should try a 2nd mAP as per

 

ER > copper > mAP1 > ... wifi ... > mAP2 > copper > Devialet,

ER > copper > mAP1 > ... wifi ... > mAP2 > copper > ER > copper > Devialet

 

Then I cold disable the Devialet wifi (which I hope would shut it down and any noise it generates).

 

Also, an idea I am going to do ... the mAP is so small and light it could be connected with e say 1 inch Cat6a UTP and 'hang' from a RJ45 port like a dongle. 

As I understand it, the ER is intended to be the last active device before the music renderer. Does that not work for you?

[barrows]

10 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

I have heard from several sources that wi-fi should be kept out of the streamer. I believe someone from Sonore, (maybe @barrows?), once said here that there would never be onboard wi-fi in a Sonore renderer.

I would say: "never say never"...  Wifi is a two way communication, so a WiFi "receiver" still has to be a transceiver.  As a transceiver, a WiFi access point is a source of additional noise-building such into a high end Renderer where we are going to great lengths to reduce all possible high frequency noise seems counterproductive at best.  As we are trying to eliminate as many noise sources as possible from proximity to the audio system, I do not believe it is a good idea to have a WiFi access point of any kind in close proximity to the audio system.  This is just what I would term "good practice".  Whether, or not, a WiFi access point in close proximity to the audio system actually will degrade audio performance is going to be highly system dependent, and would need to be tested on a case by case basis for verification.  Personally, I choose to not risk it, and I just try and keep all potential additional noise sources away from the audio system (this means all extraneous electronic components, any cheapo SMPS, noisy lighting circuits, etc).

[Jeremy Anderson]

On 3/31/2022 at 10:17 PM, R1200CL said:

I may not understand how you’re using your clock. 
Do you feed one or two devices with it ? (Simultaneously)

Two. See this for the topology:

 

[dbastin]

22 hours ago, zoltan said:

I have a feeling that in this set-up, you make the ER useless for two reasons. ER cleans the ethernet signal from electric and also reclocks the signal. Electric noise will not travel though wifi, so it doesn't matter. Secondly, the Mikrotik will reclock the signal again, as any network device in the chain and unless it has a better clock than the ER, it doesn't matter. I'm not even sure if reduced jitter makes any sense when we are talking about wifi. You should do your last suggested method, except that you won't make use of the first ER as I said above: 
ER > copper > mAP1 > ... wifi ... > mAP2 > copper > ER > copper > Devialet
BTW, I also have a Devialet (Expert D800) and I think the wifi is switch off when you program it that way.  

 

Good point.  I hand in mind that this would have provided better isolation from noise for both my server/core and mAP; in which case my complete network chain to the audio endpoint would be:

 

ISP > Cat 6a UTP > ER > fibre (10m) > Mikrotik CRS 305 (as router) > fibre > 2nd ER side B > copper > mAP1 > ... wifi ... > Devailet

2nd ER side B > copper > Antipodes EX (server)

 

Note, copper is whatever ethernet cable I am exploring.  An ER upstream of wifi and fibre still makes a considerable difference, compared to a generic FMC, presumably cleaning up the mess that comes out of the ISP box.

 

So perhaps the 2nd ER would serve best and another bookend.

 

ISP > Cat 6a UTP > ER > fibre (10m) > Mikrotik CRS 305 (as router) > copper > mAP1 > ... wifi ... > mAP2 > copper> 2nd ER > copper > Devailet

This will certainly challenge the Devialet which already has an extremely low noise floor.

 

18 hours ago, Encore said:

I have had this a few times.  I suspect it is because there is a band of noise and distortion that has been removed making it more comfortable to play at higher volume., and higher volume helps to dig deeper into the sound and soundstage.

Exactly. But I think it's a combination with what I've always experienced when I have improved the digital chain: The frequency extremes become better. I.e. more weighty bass and crisper highs. In some cases I think the ear may pick this up as a more recessed midrange. This then prompts you to turn up the volume. And I think I just had to get used to it--I really dig it now! Listening to the Dune soundtrack, I was totally blown away yesterday 😆

 

I too experience the better definition of the frequency extremes, which seems to extend the range but probably just makes it intelligible.  I agree, it is a combination ... the midrange is relatively less loud 'noise' and instead quieter, more refined purity. 

 

My actual system is Devialet 440 Pro driving TAD ME1 about 85Hz upwards, and below that a pair of subwoofers each channel.  Who would've thought the small ME1s would benefit from 220w each?!  Over my journey, the bass initially got more/bigger and louder and then as the network got improved the bass became smaller/quieter but far more defined.  I gather this is due to less 'blur' which is demonstrated by the impulse curve.

 

When distortion, noise, ringing etc is reduced, bass is less bloated because there is essentially less in the decay.  This shows the difference in impulse between corrected and uncorrected signal, in this case using PEQ, but I gather it is the same concept.

 

 

13 hours ago, barrows said:

If I understand John Swenson's explanation properly, accumulated clock phase noise products will be combined with the signal such that this noise does travel over both WiFi and optical Ethernet.  The Etheregen blocks this noise from upstream sources from A-B side.

Noted, thanks.

 

13 hours ago, audiobomber said:

I have heard from several sources that wi-fi should be kept out of the streamer. I believe someone from Sonore, (maybe @barrows?), once said here that there would never be onboard wi-fi in a Sonore renderer.

 

My initial setup to test wi-fi in the Playpoint vs. upstream used a TP Link RE650 and did not include the ER. Still, this provided significant improvement. I now use a TP-Link 580D extender instead of the RE650, as the 580D accepts a linear power supply. The ER most definitely has a better clock.

 

13 hours ago, audiobomber said:

As I understand it, the ER is intended to be the last active device before the music renderer. Does that not work for you?

I will explore these possibilities as noted above.  For instance, ERs as book ends.

 

12 hours ago, barrows said:

I would say: "never say never"...  Wifi is a two way communication, so a WiFi "receiver" still has to be a transceiver.  As a transceiver, a WiFi access point is a source of additional noise-building such into a high end Renderer where we are going to great lengths to reduce all possible high frequency noise seems counterproductive at best.  As we are trying to eliminate as many noise sources as possible from proximity to the audio system, I do not believe it is a good idea to have a WiFi access point of any kind in close proximity to the audio system.  This is just what I would term "good practice".  Whether, or not, a WiFi access point in close proximity to the audio system actually will degrade audio performance is going to be highly system dependent, and would need to be tested on a case by case basis for verification.  Personally, I choose to not risk it, and I just try and keep all potential additional noise sources away from the audio system (this means all extraneous electronic components, any cheapo SMPS, noisy lighting circuits, etc).

I previously felt the same.  And my past experience with wifi was not at all encouraging.  Aurlaic Aries G1, and then Devialet, got me taking risks to revisit all those assumptions.  I don't keep changes and devices that do not make an improvement.

 

There are so many rabbit holes in this hobby.

[emailists]

@dbastinA bit off topic but have you tried running your ME1’s full range with subs coming in below that?

 

That’s how I run my TAD CR1’s- with dual subs coming in under 40hz.  
 

I think I posted about this previously, but as far as bass benefitting from network connection, after getting the Onti Cat8 cables to replace 6a, into and out of the ER, the entire lower end of the spectrum filled out, and vocalists had more body.  I had to lower the levels of my subs.  Incredible that network cables had such  a profound effect, and benefited other areas of the spectrum as well. 

[dbastin]

14 hours ago, emailists said:

@dbastinA bit off topic but have you tried running your ME1’s full range with subs coming in below that?

 

That’s how I run my TAD CR1’s- with dual subs coming in under 40hz.  
 

I think I posted about this previously, but as far as bass benefitting from network connection, after getting the Onti Cat8 cables to replace 6a, into and out of the ER, the entire lower end of the spectrum filled out, and vocalists had more body.  I had to lower the levels of my subs.  Incredible that network cables had such  a profound effect, and benefited other areas of the spectrum as well. 

 

Thanks.  Here is some food for thought.

 

85Hz crossover to subs is based on acoustics and speaker placement: my Devialet has high and low pass filters and delays in the digital domain.

 

Subs almost against the front wall couple with the wall acoustics and mostly seems cleanest bass - no reflection of bass from front wall or1/4 wavelength cancellation.

 

One pair of subs is about 6 inches off the floor and handle 20 - 55Hz high excursion which my JL e112 do very well.  The e112 also provide crossover to the upper pair.

 

The upper pair are above those about 2 feet off the floor which is cleaner upper bass than on the floor, so handle 55 - 85 Hz and I use Martin Logan Balanced Force 210s for this task.

 

The ME1s can then be placed out into the room, away from the influence of the wall,  and again far enough to minimise1/4 wavelength cancellation and optimise for listening position.

 

The ME1s midrange and mid bass is not spoilt by also producing low frequencies.  It sounds cleaner and clearer.  More powerful but far less reverberant and excessive overloading (and blowing windows out).

 

I say all this because it is quite critical to judging and fully appreciating  improvements to ethernet which yield considerable improvements in low end .. and its a lot more then just more and deeper, it is meaningful, articulate, dynamic, controlled, fast, etc.

 

I have had more and deeper, but as I continued to improve the ethernet system, it got more lean, precise, and lifelike.

 

So, the profound effect of your cables may actually still be affecting the music rather than being transparent.  I have Shunyata Sigma ethernet and it is a prime example of leaner but far more detail.  The impulse chart I posted earlier is to show how a cable or some other thing in a network could be resulting in the 'slower' responding curve - it is what some call blur.  This seems most apparent in low frequencies, provided your speaker placement and room acoustics aren't preventing this from being apparent.

[rah50]

Hi All:

 

I'm trying to connect my EtherRegen to my Cisco 2960G using the SFP ports, but it's not working. Is there any secret to getting this working?

 

I'm using a genuine Cisco fiber cable. I've reset and rebooted the 2960. I've reversed the cable ends. Just no activity light on the Cisco SFP port. I thought it would be just plug and play.

 

Any thoughts?

[mitch751]

1 hour ago, rah50 said:

Hi All:

 

I'm trying to connect my EtherRegen to my Cisco 2960G using the SFP ports, but it's not working. Is there any secret to getting this working?

 

I'm using a genuine Cisco fiber cable. I've reset and rebooted the 2960. I've reversed the cable ends. Just no activity light on the Cisco SFP port. I thought it would be just plug and play.

 

Any thoughts?

are you using a pair of the same SFP modules, are they compatible with CISCO ?

[andru26]

4 hours ago, rah50 said:

Hi All:

 

I'm trying to connect my EtherRegen to my Cisco 2960G using the SFP ports, but it's not working. Is there any secret to getting this working?

 

I'm using a genuine Cisco fiber cable. I've reset and rebooted the 2960. I've reversed the cable ends. Just no activity light on the Cisco SFP port. I thought it would be just plug and play.

 

Any thoughts?

 

3rd party SFP modules have to be specifically configured from the factory to be compatible with the unit brand they are used with. So, in your case, they have to be compatible with both Cisco and also ER units. They Cisco compatibility is easier to figure out, since it has a wide support. On ER compatibility maybe @Superdad can clarify the SFP specifications.

[Cable Monkey]

The very first requirement is that it is all 1gb capable end to end. If the Cisco port isn’t 1gb nothing works. If the SFP’s aren’t then nothing works. Secondly ensure the SFP’s are fully engaged. They can take a little more force than most people consider normal. Thirdly see what the startup procedure is for the Cisco. It is a commercial product so it is not simply designed to switch on and work. You may need to enable an optical port. Only then start looking at finer detail like compatibility.

[rah50]

I’m using a genuine Cisco SFP 10G A01CM premade cable that has the sfp’s already attached to the cable. This should be perfect, no?

[Superdad]

4 hours ago, rah50 said:

I’m using a genuine Cisco SFP 10G A01CM premade cable that has the sfp’s already attached to the cable. This should be perfect, no?

Sorry, but Google does not yield any results for Cisco SFP A01CM.

But as long as the transceivers on the end of that cable are Gigabit you should be fine.

The EtherREGEN ignores manufacturer ID codes and also does not require one.

Do push the transceiver into the port quite firmly.  The last 0.5mm can often make the difference!