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

[agladstone]

4 minutes ago, Rsbrsvp said:

Seems like the DX is a EMI filter.   I guess if the etherregen also filters EMI than the DX is not necessary.

 

We need Uptone to tell us if the etherregen is already doing this job.

Alex did tell me that if I use the medical Ethernet isolators, to only use them

before / upstream of the EtherRegen and never afterwards/ downstream. 

[R1200CL]

23 hours ago, Mike Rubin said:

Perhaps I am missing something here, but what exactly would be the purpose of this device? I now use my eR to convert copper to fiber and to isolate noise contamination from the copper part of my network, running from the B side to the A to an optical Rendu version.  

 

If copper already has been contained or is non-existent in your network, because you already have a fiberglass segment, what would a simplified fiber-to-fiber eR accomplish?  Or are you asking for SFP's on both sides of the moat, plus four RJ-45's on the A side so you still can also actually use the eR as a switch?

The reason for this request is that technically there is a difference between A>B vs B>A. 
The difference may be small. It may not. It’s depending on measurements. I’m not a person that is “challenging” what John said 2 years ago, before no one was using a clock. So I won’t quote. You will have to do the work and search yourself. 
 

The point is to have the B side where clock input and clock is today, to also have SFP out. Crossing the moat is a degradation. It’s a fact. But it’s unknown if, or how much it’s matter. I hope this clarifies your question. 

[R1200CL]

22 hours ago, sgb said:

I am in the same position. I am going from B>A because I have an opticalRendu. I really would like to say that with the external clock from Afterdark and B>A there is a huge positive improvement in sound quality. (more than 10% 😀)

Still, I’m calming a optical out B side from an optical EtherRegen will sound better. Of cause only for opticalRendu owners. The market may be very limited. Let’s hope at least a batch of 250. 

[R1200CL]

22 hours ago, Superdad said:

I am sure that wish will not be fulfilled. Too small a market.

I will have to PM you and John later this year for a group buy 😀

The future is optical. 

[JohnSwenson]

I have looked at a Baaske, it is a transformer with a bandwidth just high enough to pass 100M or 1G signals. Note the actual symbol rate of 100M and 1G is exactly the same.

 

All standard Ethernet interfaces already contain a transformer, so are ALREADY galvanically isolated. The difference is that the Baaske transformer is specifically rated for some very high voltage (I don't remember the actual number but it is probably something like 5000 volts). The standard transformers are not tested to meet a specific high voltage.

 

The frequency roll off just above what is necessary to pass the signal can help cut down on very high frequency noise that might get picked up on a cable, BUT it also degrades the signal because it chops off the harmonics necessary to produce nice square waves.

 

Both standard transformers and the Baaske behave exactly the same in regards to leakage current: blocking low impedance and passing high impedance.

 

The whole "medical" part is just that for the Baaske every one is tested to make sure it can withstand the high voltage specs. The standards ones are not individually tested. The Baaske transformer is physically larger in order to have the thicker insulation necessary to meet the high voltage test, but this cuts down on the bandwidth. The standard transformers almost all have higher bandwidth.

 

The "medical" part is there to protect humans connected to diagnostic equipment that are connected to Ethernet, so that if something bizarre happens and the cable gets some very high voltage applied to it it won't make it to the electrodes connected to a patient. Standard Ethernet transformers generally do not have to meet this requirement.

 

So what happens inside the ER in this regard? The ER has very expensive Ethernet transformers, they are NOT medical rated (very few audiophiles run the output of an ER into electrodes connected directly to their bodies) but they are very high bandwidth designed to preserve the signal integrity of signals passing through them. They also have very good common mode rejection.

 

Something like the Baaske MAY have an advantage in some cases where the lower bandwidth helps to reduce some noise on the signals, but you have to trade that off with what happens because of the degraded signal integrity. In some cases it may make a small improvement, in others it will make no difference and in others it may degrade things a little.

 

On the B side of the ER the signal coming out is already extremely clean  so the only thing a Baaske does is degrade the signal, thus the recommendation to never use it on the B side side. (This is assuming the B side is connected to the  audio equipment).

 

I have only looked at the Baaske not any of the others, some may be similar, some may be different, I don't know.

 

John S.

 

[Rsbrsvp]

45 minutes ago, JohnSwenson said:

I have looked at a Baaske, it is a transformer with a bandwidth just high enough to pass 100M or 1G signals. Note the actual symbol rate of 100M and 1G is exactly the same.

 

All standard Ethernet interfaces already contain a transformer, so are ALREADY galvanically isolated. The difference is that the Baaske transformer is specifically rated for some very high voltage (I don't remember the actual number but it is probably something like 5000 volts). The standard transformers are not tested to meet a specific high voltage.

 

The frequency roll off just above what is necessary to pass the signal can help cut down on very high frequency noise that might get picked up on a cable, BUT it also degrades the signal because it chops off the harmonics necessary to produce nice square waves.

 

Both standard transformers and the Baaske behave exactly the same in regards to leakage current: blocking low impedance and passing high impedance.

 

The whole "medical" part is just that for the Baaske every one is tested to make sure it can withstand the high voltage specs. The standards ones are not individually tested. The Baaske transformer is physically larger in order to have the thicker insulation necessary to meet the high voltage test, but this cuts down on the bandwidth. The standard transformers almost all have higher bandwidth.

 

The "medical" part is there to protect humans connected to diagnostic equipment that are connected to Ethernet, so that if something bizarre happens and the cable gets some very high voltage applied to it it won't make it to the electrodes connected to a patient. Standard Ethernet transformers generally do not have to meet this requirement.

 

So what happens inside the ER in this regard? The ER has very expensive Ethernet transformers, they are NOT medical rated (very few audiophiles run the output of an ER into electrodes connected directly to their bodies) but they are very high bandwidth designed to preserve the signal integrity of signals passing through them. They also have very good common mode rejection.

 

Something like the Baaske MAY have an advantage in some cases where the lower bandwidth helps to reduce some noise on the signals, but you have to trade that off with what happens because of the degraded signal integrity. In some cases it may make a small improvement, in others it will make no difference and in others it may degrade things a little.

 

On the B side of the ER the signal coming out is already extremely clean  so the only thing a Baaske does is degrade the signal, thus the recommendation to never use it on the B side side. (This is assuming the B side is connected to the  audio equipment).

 

I have only looked at the Baaske not any of the others, some may be similar, some may be different, I don't know.

 

John S.

 

THANK YOU.   

[Pokey77]

@JohnSwenson

 

I, and of course many others, really appreciate all of your in-depth explanations.

[One and a half]

4 hours ago, agladstone said:

How do you think that DX system differs from the other Medical Ethernet Isolators like the Baaske, etc or are they essentially doing the same thing? 
I was initially using one of the Baaske medical Ethernet isolators before the EtherRegen, but recently removed it because I’m still confused about what they actually do? 

 

4 hours ago, Rsbrsvp said:

Seems like the DX is a EMI filter.   I guess if the etherregen also filters EMI than the DX is not necessary.

 

We need Uptone to tell us if the etherregen is already doing this job.

 

As @JohnSwenson replied, the Baaske 'filter' is a transformer with high voltage capabilities. The transformer is a block for common mode noise, that noise of course is frequency dependent of the origin and transmission paths. There's only so much than can be crammed onto a Baaske due to its size, not that it is totally useless, it can block the noise, and also prevent a surge in HV to the receiver. If you have a look at the Wurth filters, each type can attenuate different frequencies, so the one filter won't do. How the common mode choke works is described here. 

 

How the DX ISO Plus filter works is a broadband filter, from say 1-2MHz to above 30MHz. Frequencies above 30MHz are conducted through wire, higher frequencies cannot, and are picked up by an antenna, capacitively usually with the receiver, so it's more an immune design issue on the receiver side. In deciding between a Gigafoil filter and the DX was of cost and aesthetics. The Gigafoil is a horrible case, couldn't live with it, the price for a 10 pack is a third the cost of a Gigafoil and can be placed at several points in the chain, and the GHz filtering is nice, but those frequencies don't travel through wires, so a little pointless. 

 

@LewinskiH01, please follow the link in my signature where the DX ISO Plus filter is installed. For fun, I took the EtherRegen out of circuit and played Diana Kraal "The girl in the other Room" again to compare. Diana's 'esses' turned into 'sh'. The solo guitar in the intro was now over the left speaker only rather than blending from the 10 deg to the left speaker. There was now no depth, Diana's vocals was on top of the solo guitar, and cymbals were buried, was unlistenable.

 

The DX ISO Plus works complementary to the EtherRegen's abilities with an advantage to place the filter where it's effective really anywhere in the network at the source of the noise, like a router or regular type switch.

 

 

 

 

[Mike Rubin]

6 hours ago, R1200CL said:

The reason for this request is that technically there is a difference between A>B vs B>A. 
The difference may be small. It may not. It’s depending on measurements. I’m not a person that is “challenging” what John said 2 years ago, before no one was using a clock. So I won’t quote. You will have to do the work and search yourself. 
 

The point is to have the B side where clock input and clock is today, to also have SFP out. Crossing the moat is a degradation. It’s a fact. But it’s unknown if, or how much it’s matter. I hope this clarifies your question. 

My recollection is that Uptone said that a single copper input into the B side and only an SFP on the A side retained the benefits of going from A to B with copper, but I could be remembering incorrectly. I only have one used mine with copper going from B to A and optical from A to the Rendu.  I can't speak to the differences between A to B and B to A sound quality because I am unable to compare them, but I was under the impression that Uptone management believed that I wasn't giving up any by going out from the SFP.  

[GryphonGuy]

18 minutes ago, Mike Rubin said:

My recollection is that Uptone said that a single copper input into the B side and only an SFP on the A side retained the benefits of going from A to B with copper, but I could be remembering incorrectly. I only have one used mine with copper going from B to A and optical from A to the Rendu.  I can't speak to the differences between A to B and B to A sound quality because I am unable to compare them, but I was under the impression that Uptone management believed that I wasn't giving up any by going out from the SFP.  

 

My audio network is fibre based so all transmissions are fibre on the A side. Every transmission for me is B>A then A>B as I have two etherREGENs, one next to my PC and one next to my audio router/distributor. So when I record to PC the analogue signal hits the audio router's ADC card and is sent to out via B>A then arriving at my PC A>B. Likewise, when playing back, the PC sends B>A to the awaiting DAC card in Audio router via A>B. So whatever the effect of B>A vs A>B, I am getting it at all times, and I can tell you it is pretty amazing, no, let me revise to awe-inspiring at the realism. I am just about to publish my findings of a good week of testing various combinations of cabling and fibre transceivers in my system.

 

Regards

GG

[Rsbrsvp]

4 hours ago, One and a half said:

 

 

As @JohnSwenson replied, the Baaske 'filter' is a transformer with high voltage capabilities. The transformer is a block for common mode noise, that noise of course is frequency dependent of the origin and transmission paths. There's only so much than can be crammed onto a Baaske due to its size, not that it is totally useless, it can block the noise, and also prevent a surge in HV to the receiver. If you have a look at the Wurth filters, each type can attenuate different frequencies, so the one filter won't do. How the common mode choke works is described here. 

 

How the DX ISO Plus filter works is a broadband filter, from say 1-2MHz to above 30MHz. Frequencies above 30MHz are conducted through wire, higher frequencies cannot, and are picked up by an antenna, capacitively usually with the receiver, so it's more an immune design issue on the receiver side. In deciding between a Gigafoil filter and the DX was of cost and aesthetics. The Gigafoil is a horrible case, couldn't live with it, the price for a 10 pack is a third the cost of a Gigafoil and can be placed at several points in the chain, and the GHz filtering is nice, but those frequencies don't travel through wires, so a little pointless. 

 

@LewinskiH01, please follow the link in my signature where the DX ISO Plus filter is installed. For fun, I took the EtherRegen out of circuit and played Diana Kraal "The girl in the other Room" again to compare. Diana's 'esses' turned into 'sh'. The solo guitar in the intro was now over the left speaker only rather than blending from the 10 deg to the left speaker. There was now no depth, Diana's vocals was on top of the solo guitar, and cymbals were buried, was unlistenable.

 

The DX ISO Plus works complementary to the EtherRegen's abilities with an advantage to place the filter where it's effective really anywhere in the network at the source of the noise, like a router or regular type switch.

 

 

 

 

Thank you so much.

 

Based on your and John Swnesons replies, I have ordered only two of the DX units to test between my router and my OM deluxe which sits right before my ER.   Inexpensive enough to test.  I doubt that I wont get $50.00 of benefit, but if I don't, it would be far from the worst investment I have ever made.....

 

I appreciate answers from technically capable people like you and John, as I am very much NOT technically knowledgeable..

[One and a half]

3 hours ago, Rsbrsvp said:

Thank you so much.

 

Based on your and John Swnesons replies, I have ordered only two of the DX units to test between my router and my OM deluxe which sits right before my ER.   Inexpensive enough to test.  I doubt that I wont get $50.00 of benefit, but if I don't, it would be far from the worst investment I have ever made.....

 

I appreciate answers from technically capable people like you and John, as I am very much NOT technically knowledgeable..

Good luck with the DX units, and please report back your findings. 

 

Reduction of noise, whether common, differential mode, high impedance leakage currents in Ethernet transmissions has a profound influence on what can be heard at the speaker/headphone. Reduce that crud and the benefits are:

 

i) soundstage spread out and height increases

ii) removal of crud exposes to subtleties with small details in the music ('more air'), brushes and percussion more pronounced

iii) If there's depth in the recording, is available

iv) drums actually can sound like drums

v) instrument positioning with stability (no wandering)

 

I feel there's more unfinished pioneering work with computer audio, the weaknesses are not so much the DAC nowadays, but the source, computers, hard drives and their power supplies. 

[R1200CL]

7 hours ago, Mike Rubin said:

I can't speak to the differences between A to B and B to A sound quality because I am unable to compare them, but I was under the impression that Uptone management believed that I wasn't giving up any by going out from the SFP.  

I’m more speaking about the effect of adding a good external clock, and how much degradation there is crossing the moat from B to A. 
 

Adding a clock is done on B side.

 

I guess it’s possible to measure. If you know where to pick up the clock signal on A side. But it may not be that simple. Maybe a test board is needed to be built with that isolator in use. 
 

The potentially market today may be very limited for a fiber DDC with an external clock attached. 
I got a AfterDark King that is measured 112 dBc at 1Hz and 140 dBc at 10Hz. Very good numbers at a fair price.

 

Such a DDC would be added after B output of my EtherRegen, or after optical out from a opticalModule, so the device ought to have both RJ45 and SFP in. But needs only SFP out, where also the external clock could be applied. 
 

If someone found a way to bypass and modify the opticalRendu to accept an external clock signal, that would be interesting. I can’t see that will ever happen 😀

 

If it’s possible to modify the A side of the EtherRegen to accept an external clock, maybe a possible solution. 
Finding someone willing to perform such a modification is probably impossible, and very risky as well.

Also I think you will bypass the moat, making the whole modification more or less a total waste. 
 

 

[Clockmeister]

2 hours ago, One and a half said:

 

i) soundstage spread out and height increases

ii) removal of crud exposes to subtleties with small details in the music ('more air'), brushes and percussion more pronounced

iii) If there's depth in the recording, is available

iv) drums actually can sound like drums

v) instrument positioning with stability (no wandering)

 

I feel there's more unfinished pioneering work with computer audio, the weaknesses are not so much the DAC nowadays, but the source, computers, hard drives and their power supplies. 

 

Nail, head interface 200%

 

However they have been a few companies doing this for quite a few years, however they tended to be non audio companies looking into these areas for other reasons.

 

Think about this logically why would you require a great deal of computing power to actually achieve what is little more than very low level data transfer, very basic file organisation and one or two interface outputs beats me.

 

The amount of unnecessary crud (electrical interference) flying around a pc mother board is bad enough with a basic pc lol.

 

Let alone you guys putting crap Ethernet signal into them, as with all of these upgrades what you are trying to achieve is the removal of the vast majority of all electrical, radio frequency, electromagnetic, vibration and thermal interference.

 

With the impedending advent of new PCIE 5 standard (which is currently at def con 0.9) and PCIE 6 at def con 0.4) PCIE 5 capable of duplex lanes of standard four so 32GB/s and the six will be capable of double that again, the way data is transferred and the methodology will quite something all those days. New pathway configuration are being developed all the time due to and data corruption from higher transfer speeds, more lanes and transmission line issues.

 

Of all of the current audio playback devices this far Taiko extreme is more down the road than any other I have experienced to this point, still quite a bit room for improvement, but they at least are recognising the main issues with using a PC based audio source system imho.

 

No we do not sell them, but I could listen to one for my second system no problem.

 

The main issues are signal integrity from the incoming ethernet, to PCM data between the various boxes, low level digital signals are more susceptible to the electrical environments they travel in with regard to audio devices imho.

 

It is interesting to see the various way each individual address these situations great work from all of you guys, nice to see ingenuity at work

 

What we are going to be performing in the next few weeks bench testing of a product  we have been developing for while, we are currently waiting for an Ethernet  Rx & Tx fixtures so we can test not just transmission protocols but physical testing as well full jitter lanes for master and slave.

 

Happy to show before and after on the e.Regen with stock psu and no clock etc.

 

 

[MarkusBarkus]

@ClockmeisterDo you find optical helps with these negative aspects of signal flow/processing?  
 

In my case, I have fiber ISP, a little copper out of the ONT to an FMC and fiber the rest of the way (and into Taiko). 
 

Is fiber a better solution, when available, in your experience? Enjoying your insights quite a bit, thank you very much!

[MartinT]

I would not have a PC in my music room. Far too noisy.

 

When you can have dedicated low noise streamer/bridges like the ultraRendu and signatureRendu which can do file-based or streams, I would always go for the dedicated component for the job.

 

I work in IT, so I have no shortage of PCs!

[LEO SOUND]

3 hours ago, R1200CL said:

I’m more speaking about the effect of adding a good external clock, and how much degradation there is crossing the moat from B to A. 
 

Adding a clock is done on B side.

 

I guess it’s possible to measure. If you know where to pick up the clock signal on A side. But it may not be that simple. Maybe a test board is needed to be built with that isolator in use. 
 

The potentially market today may be very limited for a fiber DDC with an external clock attached. 
I got a AfterDark King that is measured 112 dBc at 1Hz and 140 dBc at 10Hz. Very good numbers at a fair price.

 

Such a DDC would be added after B output of my EtherRegen, or after optical out from a opticalModule, so the device ought to have both RJ45 and SFP in. But needs only SFP out, where also the external clock could be applied. 
 

If someone found a way to bypass and modify the opticalRendu to accept an external clock signal, that would be interesting. I can’t see that will ever happen 😀

 

If it’s possible to modify the A side of the EtherRegen to accept an external clock, maybe a possible solution. 
Finding someone willing to perform such a modification is probably impossible, and very risky as well.

Also I think you will bypass the moat, making the whole modification more or less a total waste. 
 

 

I scratch my head.

according to a configuration:

Box> RJ45> converter media> SFP module> Side A ER with a clock connected to side B, my streamer (RJ45) must be connected to output B of the ER or to side A of the ER to avoid degrading the signal ?

For my part, I think I will plug in on side B.

Leo

[R1200CL]

29 minutes ago, LEO SOUND said:

I scratch my head.

according to a configuration:

Box> RJ45> converter media> SFP module> Side A ER with a clock connected to side B, my streamer (RJ45) must be connected to output B of the ER or to side A of the ER to avoid degrading the signal ?

For my part, I think I will plug in on side B.

Leo

Not sure I understand you. Your streamer isn’t optical. So just use the EtherRegen as intended. A>B. 

[Clockmeister]

1 hour ago, MarkusBarkus said:

@ClockmeisterDo you find optical helps with these negative aspects of signal flow/processing?  
 

In my case, I have fiber ISP, a little copper out of the ONT to an FMC and fiber the rest of the way (and into Taiko). 
 

Is fiber a better solution, when available, in your experience? Enjoying your insights quite a bit, thank you very much!

Hello Markus

 

With regards to your question on light source data transfer, theoretically once the data is inside the 'light pipe' short of being bombarded with silly frequencies and hyper power rf amplifiers or emp pulses the data should remain corruption free.

 

I personally have zero need for ethernet RJ45 protocol in my personal systems as I use custom designed and built storage devices located in the PCIE slots horizontally mounted, with individual rail supplies and total decoupling of each pcie rail. enough for 8Tb per card.

 

Quick history lesson, Wadia were the first consumer audio company to use AT&T glass optic for a dedicated clock tx/rx slave master clocking system back in the late 90's on the 270/27i combination.

 

It seemed to work well, with all but a few audiophiles opting for straight AES output, I had a few fail when I was looking after them, and have replaced quite a few of the dedicated AT&T modules.

 

However you are adding another conversion process into the equation, by converting the electrical signal <> light source then back again, the issue arises in that conversions stages.

 

I built a few trick psu's at that time (some 20 years ago showing age now lol) and that did improve matters, as  did the 'Orange light pipe' instead of the grey one lol, but it really did sound better!!

 

Maybe the refractive index  was marginally better??????? 🧐 who knows!

 

Ok, I have clients with fibre convertors who really do swear by them, however when you look at their individual circumstances, they routers are across the house some 30m or so from the listening space, so I suspect it helps there yes pretty sure it has a positive effect.

 

Also if you have a non option Ethernet of power sockets then again I would look at these alternatives. If internet streaming is your primary source.

 

I can cite this example, one of our demonstration suites systems we have the full subscription services (tidal LOL) for clients who are interested in streaming devices, we are very fortunate we have a 300Mb pipe for internet data  genuinely have at least 280M on a bad day.

 

The router is situated some 8m above the listening room and uses a very specific Cat8 cable I have further grounded (0 volt reference) and shielded.

 

It sounds pretty fair more than enough to demonstrate audio to perspective purchases for streaming item, now before you chaps jump up and down and go but I use x switch with this power supply, this re-clocking RJ45 device in triple tandem with a $20K mains conditioner and $8K master clock just feeding the incoming Ethernet stream etc.

 

I have noticed on here some chaps have spent a small fortune on the IP infrastructure BEFORE you get to any streaming device or playback unit.

 

Having listened to a get many systems I am under no illusion they do bring positive benefits to that persons listening experience.

 

We have one client who is an IT genius he works for those people we cannot comment on here in the UK, with regard to IT info structure, networking and interfaces, this chap has probably forgotten more than I or 99.999% of the population will ever know in this area. Lets just say his Ethernet delivery system only is well over £20K GBP before any connection to the audio system. Every possible aspect has been address from specially constructed fully shielded in wall mounted sockets, dedicated in wall trucking, trick psu everywhere, a monster reference and the very best RJ45b cabling etc.

 

Is he obsessive, Oh yes!, does he go farther than most sane people would even if cost was virtually no object and then some. However it is his system, his design and it is the way he wishes it to be, customer is correct 98.2% of the time!

 

Back to the light pipe, I have to give credit to Martin T for this little gem, Ok we have a decent fibre IP provider, that delivers, I use a modest 4G mobile (cell for our US cousins)  router cost around £200, I have performed some internal restructuring, made a small semi faraday cadge for its  RJ45 output rails, yes it does have a very trick single rail 12Vdc power supply no question, it then runs a very short 0.85 RJ45 cable to the streamer unit (for customer demos) I have also improved electrical isolation and the output socket itself having removed the rest of them plus a nifty re-clocking latch . It makes a total Mockery of the internet fibre, you can place an e.Regen on the incoming fibre line, still not as good (yes it without question improves that data line) But remember 99% of customers will have  standard internet service and infrastructure.

 

Before you guys go you are knocking the E,regen, NO I am not, I have always stated it works and works very well for the cost it delivers big performance for cost no question at all.

 

My point is, that I do not use streaming as critical listening so this negates the use of all of the Ethernet clean up devices for myself, have I put a e.Regen on the 4G router yes, it does make a difference but not in the same way it does on the fibre 300M pipe.

 

If you have a good 4 or 5G mobile signal, then try it, you will only ever have just your audio streaming on that router, totally isolated from the rest of house.

 

So the fibre light pipe converters I can see working in quite a few instances for different reasons yes

 

 

 

 

 

[LewinskiH01]

1 hour ago, MartinT said:

I would not have a PC in my music room. Far too noisy.

 

When you can have dedicated low noise streamer/bridges like the ultraRendu and signatureRendu which can do file-based or streams, I would always go for the dedicated component for the job.

 

I work in IT, so I have no shortage of PCs!

 

Hello Martin.

Was wondering if/how your view might change if the DAC had ethernet connection?

 

I have an "audio PC" (no motors, etc, LPS and so on) feeding a USB DAC. I'm considering turning the PC into the server that connects to an eR A>B to ethernet DAC.

 

Regards

[MartinT]

No, I don't think my opinion would change.

 

I've worked hard to treat my power in the music room and take care not to have anything noisy polluting those attempts.

[FrankMA]

18 hours ago, JohnSwenson said:

"very few audiophiles run the output of an ER into electrodes connected directly to their bodies"

 

Post of the year!!!

 

 

[Superdad]

5 hours ago, FrankMA said:

"very few audiophiles run the output of an ER into electrodes connected directly to their bodies"

I do wish John had not said that as it spoils our 2022 product introduction. 

[PYP]

1 hour ago, Superdad said:

I do wish John had not said that as it spoils our 2022 product introduction. 

Well, now that he has, just wanted to check that the wearables will interface with a fitbit (or exclusive UpTone "magic ring.")

[Pokey77]

Just as long as it makes my music sound better, I'll have one of those UpTone Magic Rings, thanks. May have to try to stack them as well.