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

[dbastin]

9 hours ago, Encore said:

I have come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as absolute isolation. No matter how good your isolation device, it can always be improved by more of them and better PSUs, clocks, et cetera.

In my experience there is:

• isolation and also
• the impact of 'noise' (or something else mysterious ) on each device regardless of isolation

For instance, using wifi or fibre, the receiving device is isolated for the sending device, and the receiving device can be designed for very low noise (eg. power supply, ground, etc, etc), but a change in power supply, cord or fuse (or some other tweak) at the sending device can cause a difference to be heard, and that can actually be an improvement to sound quality rather than or as well as just different.

 

As much as the science says the data is checked etc for perfection or it is rejected and resent until it is, and then buffered, my ears are not convinced.

 

Therefore, the answer to this ...

 

16 hours ago, Mat said:

Is there any benefit to use Melco S100 in front of Etherregen ? 

It depends on many things that may not be fully understood yet, and also on the overall context (network and system) but typically the answer will be YES.

[rah50]

On 4/18/2022 at 2:47 PM, JohnSwenson said:

Part of the issue here is the 2960s we buy are used, thus we have no idea how the previous owner configured it. My 2960G has the same issue you have, but the 2960 100Mb model DOES connect on the SFP. This has got me intrigued now so I'm going to try and see what is going on with mine. (I'm building a prototype of a new (undisclosed) product today).

 

Final resolution on getting the optical ports working on the 2690's:

 

Using the Cisco compatibility matrix, I got the following running:

 

Genuine Cisco GLC-SX-MMD multi-mode 850nm

Genuine Cisco GLC-LH-SM v3 single mode 1310nm

 

Can't tell which is better yet, I had to order another GL-LH pair so I can swap.

 

I did have to reset the switches, I think the Finistar 1421 which wouldn't work, disabled the port.

 

Also, the 2960CG model which as dual optical ports seems just as good as the 2960G and that 2nd port came in very handy allowing me to move my mesh router across the room, which I don't know if it helped, but seemed like a good practice.

[kennyb123]

On 4/21/2022 at 6:54 AM, audiobomber said:

Many "improvements" are flavour changes, IME. Not truly better,, just different. 

I have found that most experienced audiophiles call it like they hear it.  If they hear an improvement, they’ll describe it as am improvement.  And if it’s more of a flavor change, they’ll describe it as a flavor change.  Many who seek a flavor change often find they get both.  

 

[kennyb123]

On 4/21/2022 at 12:42 AM, Rsbrsvp said:

My question is, with all the technology we have- especially in a computer, why do we need these jitter reducing devices.  Can't someone make a software program to run on my fanless PC to eliminate the jitter right there and then there would be no need for all this hardware?

The problem is that our ears are incredibly sensitive to timing.  

 

The following is a slide prepared by Rob Watts from his presentation on the M Scaler.  I think he is spot on with the first section about the timing of transients.  I think one of the main reasons that our systems rarely fool us into thinking we are hearing the real thing is because we have barely scratched the surface as far as the realistic reproduction of transients.  There are just so many things that can harm timing as the music makes its journey through our systems and finally to our ears.  (Our rooms are actually among the worst offenders.)
 

The good news in all of this is that there are a ton of benefits that can come from efforts to improve timing fidelity at each step along the way.  

 

[audiobomber]

8 hours ago, kennyb123 said:

I have found that most experienced audiophiles call it like they hear it.  If they hear an improvement, they’ll describe it as am improvement.  And if it’s more of a flavor change, they’ll describe it as a flavor change.  Many who seek a flavor change often find they get both.  

 

I'm talking about actual objective vs. subjective improvements. A cable change is a prime example. It can change the sound, and you may prefer it, but I may prefer another cable, because it's just a flavour change, not an improvement. 

[audiobomber]

7 hours ago, kennyb123 said:

 

 

Where did you get this chart? Who says digital audio is "so bad". That's nonsense.

[Jud]

7 hours ago, kennyb123 said:

The problem is that our ears are incredibly sensitive to timing.  

 

The following is a slide prepared by Rob Watts from his presentation on the M Scaler.  I think he is spot on with the first section about the timing of transients.  I think one of the main reasons that our systems rarely fool us into thinking we are hearing the real thing is because we have barely scratched the surface as far as the realistic reproduction of transients.  There are just so many things that can harm timing as the music makes its journey through our systems and finally to our ears.  (Our rooms are actually among the worst offenders.)
 

The good news in all of this is that there are a ton of benefits that can come from efforts to improve timing fidelity at each step along the way.  

 

The figure for the timing resolution of CD audio is incorrect. The number given in the chart above is based on the simplistic and incorrect assumption that timing resolution is just the reciprocal of the frequency.
 

This isn't the way digital audio works. When the digital stream is reconstructed into the analog signal we hear, the actual timing error for RedBook audio is 110 picoseconds, far below anything detectable by ear.

 

There's an article at Troll Audio you can find by searching "time resolution of CD audio" that gives the correct math.

 

So I wouldn't treat the chart above as trustworthy.

[barrows]

7 minutes ago, Jud said:

So I wouldn't treat the chart above as trustworthy.

Except that I am pretty sure there is no microphone, nor loudspeaker, which can represent/reproduce transients at such levels-which would seem to make such talk about transient reproduction by a DAC entirely irrelevant.

[kennyb123]

2 hours ago, audiobomber said:

I'm talking about actual objective vs. subjective improvements. A cable change is a prime example. It can change the sound, and you may prefer it, but I may prefer another cable, because it's just a flavour change, not an improvement. 

It sounds like you should be making that argument in the Objective-Fi forum.  

[kennyb123]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

So I wouldn't treat the chart above as trustworthy.

I hate making appeals to authorities but in this case I will have to admit many of the technical points Rob Watts made are way above my pay grade.  That’s why I pointed only to “the first section” in my post.  

 

Here’s the entire presentation.

 

[kennyb123]

2 hours ago, audiobomber said:

Where did you get this chart? Who says digital audio is "so bad". That's nonsense.

Here’s the presentation.  Rob Watts was stating his objective and subjective positions.  If you would like to challenge him, you can do so here.

[Jud]

17 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

I hate making appeals to authorities but in this case I will have to admit many of the technical points Rob Watts made are way above my pay grade.  That’s why I pointed only to “the first section” in my post.  

 

Here’s the entire presentation.

 

 

At least the bullet I mentioned is just incorrect on a mathematical basis. You can find the correct calculation plenty of places besides the one I pointed to.

 

One practical demonstration  that time resolution isn't limited to the inverse of the sample rate is available to anyone who uses HQPlayer. That software has a counter for "intersample overs" - where the reconstructed signal has exceeded 0dB **between samples**. If the resolution of the reconstructed signal was limited by the sample rate, there'd be no way to tell the signal had exceeded that limit between samples.

 

Of course I'm just a layperson, and Rob Watts is a talented DAC designer. I'm certainly not going to argue about the importance of transients. I'm just saying he might have gotten a little enthusiastic about making his point here.

[kennyb123]

43 minutes ago, Jud said:

Of course I'm just a layperson, and Rob Watts is a talented DAC designer. I'm certainly not going to argue about the importance of transients. I'm just saying he might have gotten a little enthusiastic about making his point here

Possibly, but my ears have told me that he’s spot on when it comes to the benefits that come from improved timing accuracy.
 

Spectral might have at the forefront of the obsession over time domain performance but on the analog side of things.  Accuracy in the stopping and starting of notes is critically important to making reproduced music sound more like the real thing.  This was recently reinforced in a profound way when my REF10 came back to me as a REF10 SE120 just a few weeks ago.  There were improvements in every attribute Rob mentioned on that slide.  

[kennyb123]

2 hours ago, barrows said:

Except that I am pretty sure there is no microphone, nor loudspeaker, which can represent/reproduce transients at such levels-which would seem to make such talk about transient reproduction by a DAC entirely irrelevant.

I’m not so sure that it’s entirely irrelevant.  Greater timing fidelity from the start provides downstream benefits as evidenced by the fact that we can even hear benefits from applying an excellent reference clock to the ER.  

[barrows]

14 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

I’m not so sure that it’s entirely irrelevant.  Greater timing fidelity from the start provides downstream benefits as evidenced by the fact that we can even hear benefits from applying an excellent reference clock to the ER.  

Umm, there is no "greater timing fidelity" from the "start" because the start is the microphone, which cannot represent transient fidelity at the level Rob Watts speaks of.  While I have a great deal of respect for RW's work, and his designs, his explanations of what matters, and why often leave much to be desired.  I suspect, but cannot prove, that RW's work on eliminating noise floor modulation have a lot more to do with why his designs sound they way they do.

And... applying a more precise clock to the ER has nothing to do with the timing of analog signal transients coming out of a DAC, OMG!  The timing of an Ethernet signal has no relationship to the timing of the DAC signal.  This is not to say that the Ethernet clock does not matter, just that it does not make any difference in the sense which you are suggesting.

[kennyb123]

1 hour ago, barrows said:

And... applying a more precise clock to the ER has nothing to do with the timing of analog signal transients coming out of a DAC, OMG!  The timing of an Ethernet signal has no relationship to the timing of the DAC signal.  This is not to say that the Ethernet clock does not matter, just that it does not make any difference in the sense which you are suggesting.

I’ve been too brief in my responses due to time constraints. I do think how we perceive the starting and stopping of notes is enhanced by adding a reference clock to the ER.  I’m intentionally using Rob’s wording as he focuses on our “perception” of these attributes.  He’s coming about this via his education on how we perceive sound.  My post where I first posted Rob’s slide, I lead off with the words “The problem is that our ears are incredibly sensitive to timing.”  
 

I think it’s a red herring to focus on whether a microphone can achieve Rob’s transient fidelity.  What’s clear is there is transient fidelity that the microphone captured that our systems and rooms fail to pass onto us.  The use of reference clocks on the ER and my DAC has most certainly helped my system’s ability to pass this on.  The “how” is something that I have admitted is above my pay grade.  Please don’t view my responses through the “how” lens.  I am definitely not in your same league on the “how” and haven’t wanted to come off as though I was attempting to go down that path.

 

I continue to be time constrained so hopefully all that came out ok.  It’s almost weekend for me so I can do a better job of explaining myself later.

 

[barrows]

@kennyb123, I would suggest that you consider:  I do not believe you are hearing things which the microphone is incapable of capturing.  I do believe that you hear better resolution of transients when using a lower phase noise clock for Ethernet with the ER.  But, I would suggest that the difference you hear in transient fidelity is not due to the factors explained by Rob Watts regarding transient fidelity in his WTA filters, or due to be better "timing" (in the analog realm) caused by a more accurate clock for Ethernet (a purely digital realm).  Instead, I would suggest that you consider the possibility that the better transient fidelity you perceive is the result of a removal of a level of a subtle noise artifact in playback, such removal of which allows for better perception of the texture and attack (and indeed, release) of the transient edges.  I have experimented here with extremely low phase noise Ethernet clocking of my Signature Rendu SEoptical, and perceive a sonic improvement, which includes many aspects, including better definition of the texture and shape of transient edges.

OK, back to work here...

[kennyb123]

8 minutes ago, barrows said:

Instead, I would suggest that you consider the possibility that the better transient fidelity you perceive is the result of a removal of a level of a subtle noise artifact in playback, such removal of which allows for better perception of the texture and attack (and indeed, release) of the transient edges.  

Bingo!  I think this is spot on.  I had lumped this in under “timing fidelity” but your words actually add more specific context around it and fill in a gap that I had left wide open.  Thanks for that!  I wish I could have articulated it as clearly as you did.

[Encore]

Could you guys take this discussion elsewhere? Please … 

 

EDIT: Sorry, reread your posts. Seems you have already put it to rest. I was worried that it would turn into some objective vs subjective discussion, which isn’t of much help. 

[kostas6a3]

Hi

I have already ordered an HDplex 300W and I am thinking of supplying EtherREGEN with one of the 3A rails.

On another site I read that this may the HDPlex are defeating the isolation of the EtherREGEN.

Someone has experience, and that can be overcome.

[R1200CL]

47 minutes ago, kostas6a3 said:

On another site I read that this may the HDPlex are defeating the isolation of the EtherREGEN.

Why does it ?
What did actually that site say ? Link ?

 

What else is powered by the HDPlex ?

A drawing is nice. 

[kostas6a3]

1 hour ago, R1200CL said:

Why does it ?
What did actually that site say ? Link ?

 

What else is powered by the HDPlex ?

A drawing is nice. 

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/the-uptone-audio-etherregen-audiophile-switch.29106/page-4  post68.

Alex must have said that.

I'm thinking of still powering a Melco N100 (12V/2.3A), a NAS (12V/4A) and maybe a NUC  or A Roon Nucleus.

[Cable Monkey]

Only use the HDPlex to power things on your A side or B side. If it is powering things on both then earth the ER.

[kostas6a3]

26 minutes ago, Cable Monkey said:

Only use the HDPlex to power things on your A side or B side. If it is powering things on both then earth the ER.

I have not received the HDplex yet, but I have the ER already grounded.

[audiobomber]

3 hours ago, Cable Monkey said:

Only use the HDPlex to power things on your A side or B side. If it is powering things on both then earth the ER.

That would minimize current flow due to ground potential, but would it not defeat the galvanic isolation between A and B?