Fiber Media Converter for audio streaming

I really would give a wide berth... unless you need to have a link longer than 100 metres, and even then just use between two switches. These devices may well add a lot of carrier noise which would be bad. At best they are going to mitigate common mode noise which can be dealt very effectively with ferrite clamps or even some coiled loops of Ethernet lead, and they won't interfere with the physical clocking of the network signal.

I say you are better off with a quality switch  connected to you streamer using 100BaseT cables.

if and when Naim introduce fibre SFPs, then use a switch that can support at least one of  them, such as most 2960s

Simon

Serge,

If you are going to do this, and I have, then the advice is to:

1. Replace the SMPSs with Linear PSUs; and

2. Use the 10/100 FMCs, not the Gigabit - Gb are apparently inherently noisier.

That said, now that I've got my system working really well I am going to strip all the 'devices' out and start again, hear what really does add to the pudding.

M

Mr Underhill posted:

Serge,

If you are going to do this, and I have, then the advice is to:

1. Replace the SMPSs with Linear PSUs; and

2. Use the 10/100 FMCs, not the Gigabit - Gb are apparently inherently noisier.

That said, now that I've got my system working really well I am going to strip all the 'devices' out and start again, hear what really does add to the pudding.

M

Ok thanks, do you mean replacing PSUs of the switches? 

Mr Underhill posted:

Serge,

If you are going to do this, and I have, then the advice is to:

1. Replace the SMPSs with Linear PSUs; and

2. Use the 10/100 FMCs, not the Gigabit - Gb are apparently inherently noisier.

That said, now that I've got my system working really well I am going to strip all the 'devices' out and start again, hear what really does add to the pudding.

M

Do you hear real difference? 

Replace the SMPS of the FMCs.

Hear a real difference?
Yes. But, does that mean better? I have made a lot of changes over the past few months and so would like to determine what makes the most positive difference. Here were my initial thoughts:

http://forums.naimaudio.com/topic/network-isolation

However, when I first read about Audioquest network cables, for instance, I thought, "Mugs game". I then bought a Cinnamon and put it in my system, over the months I went through system changes and my opinions went through:

1. Wow, detail and dynamics;
2. Mmmm, too much edge and detail;
3. OK, I like it for some music; and
4. Finally, I recently slotted it back in = WHAT, it now sounds tonally WARM and detailed - and so I am currently using it and would recommend it.

As always with these things YMMV, but it is a cheap experiment.

M

I have two sets of FMC's - one set before the microRendu in the main system (MC100's downstream powered by HDPLEX, upstream powered by iFi SMPS on different circuit) and a set in the office before the UQ (MC100's again, power by iFi SMPS all off of the same circuit and one iFi splitting to a switch as well) and in both cases it was like the proverbial veil being lifted, instruments more defined in space, inky blackness, etc. For less than $100/set (not counting power sources though) it's a pretty cheap tweak. Of course YMMV - for example Simon suggests the big Cisco switches - I tried that but the used switch I bought was so noisy (and big) I returned it - and the FMC's work for me. 

charlesphoto posted:

I have two sets of FMC's - one set before the microRendu in the main system (MC100's downstream powered by HDPLEX, upstream powered by iFi SMPS on different circuit) and a set in the office before the UQ (MC100's again, power by iFi SMPS all off of the same circuit and one iFi splitting to a switch as well) and in both cases it was like the proverbial veil being lifted, instruments more defined in space, inky blackness, etc. For less than $100/set (not counting power sources though) it's a pretty cheap tweak. Of course YMMV - for example Simon suggests the big Cisco switches - I tried that but the used switch I bought was so noisy (and big) I returned it - and the FMC's work for me. 

i have the same with hdplex and the effect was immediate and better sound quality ( for only 120 euros). When i change my ethernet cable from mcru to audioquest diamond ( 7 times more expensive), the effect was less pronounced !   so optical bridge : yes yes yes

Hungryhalibut posted:

The switch Simon recommends, and which I use, is not big physically - it's the 8 port version, which has no fan and is totally silent. 

I guess it's all relative. If you only need 5 ports or less, and need to hide it behind the furniture, a little Netgear consumer switch is a great deal easier at maybe a quarter of the size.

Ok thanks guys for your feedbacks.

My problem is that I have 3 + 3 WD NAS systems installed, so only for NAS systems I need (3x2 + 3x1) 9 ports. Then the rest of the equipment + 10 at least.

I was thinking about Cisco 8 port switches too, but then went to D-Link 24 ports, I have 2 of them, one 10/100/1000 second 10/100. They look pretty well with the rest of the system as they are black, not as industrial as Cisco 24 ports, they are placed on the TV rack, so the front side has to be led lights only. I use 6A ethernet cables between switches and 272 and the wall, 5e between switches and the rest.

As I understand, taking into consideration the cost, it is worth a trial.

Can you then tell me the best equipment combination then, brands etc. I will try to find it in Moscow.

 You can pm me any time if you prefer.

Thanks.

S

ChrisSU posted:
Hungryhalibut posted:

The switch Simon recommends, and which I use, is not big physically - it's the 8 port version, which has no fan and is totally silent. 

I guess it's all relative. If you only need 5 ports or less, and need to hide it behind the furniture, a little Netgear consumer switch is a great deal easier at maybe a quarter of the size.

It lives on the floor under the sideboard, so as long as it's less than five feet long there is no problem. I only use four ports (the one from the router and the ones for Qnap, 272 and Qb) but the results are so much better than with the old Netgear that the slight disruption was well worthwhile. 

Tesilk posted:

What about this converter D-link DMC-F30SC/A1A?

 

 

you can put optical bridge between switch and streamer: switch then short ethernet cable then tplink then 2 optical cables then tplink with hdplex ps then good ethernet cable then streamer.    There is also more expensive and simplier: etalon isolator.

For nas, good linear ps.     but maybe you knew all this before...

Ok guys, finally done.

Well, everything is better, difficult to describe, but Diana Krall DSD sounds even better, ATCs and 272 shine  -  more air, more details and precision, very, very good addition indeed, highly recommended! Thanks everyone for help!

S

Pretty happy whit hte results, 

Keler Pierre posted:
Tesilk posted:

What about this converter D-link DMC-F30SC/A1A?

 

 

you can put optical bridge between switch and streamer: switch then short ethernet cable then tplink then 2 optical cables then tplink with hdplex ps then good ethernet cable then streamer.    There is also more expensive and simplier: etalon isolator.

For nas, good linear ps.     but maybe you knew all this before...

Pierre, what if I want to do a second optical bridge inside of the first one? What should be the setup in that case? 

Thanks Serge 

Tesilk posted:

Pretty happy whit hte results, 

Keler Pierre posted:
Tesilk posted:

What about this converter D-link DMC-F30SC/A1A?

 

 

you can put optical bridge between switch and streamer: switch then short ethernet cable then tplink then 2 optical cables then tplink with hdplex ps then good ethernet cable then streamer.    There is also more expensive and simplier: etalon isolator.

For nas, good linear ps.     but maybe you knew all this before...

Pierre, what if I want to do a second optical bridge inside of the first one? What should be the setup in that case? 

Thanks Serge 

i have never heard of second optical bridge into the first one. I think a unique one is enough. But i heard that optical network is better than optical bridge.  You can go to google and tap: optical network devialet chat. You will find all your responses i think.  But you can also buy an ethernet isolator like etalon isolator, probably the best thing, but too much if you have audioquest diamond lan cord and naim nds. I have the last, but if not i would buy ethernet isolator ( about 350 pounds).

Tesilk posted:

Will add hdplex ps soon I hope - impossible to find it here

all linear ps will be good for the tp link switch: from hifi power to teddy pardo ps or hd plex to uptone audio js2( the most expensive).  you have a lot of informations on : linear ps for switch and router. in naim forums.  I use now uptone js2 on my unitserve and tp link switch ( 2 outputs on the js2).  The effect is dramatic!    After optical bridge or ethernet isolator, the second important thing is linear ps on nas( or unitserve...).  Also a good lan cord for the streamer.( meicord/ chord c stream/ audioquest vodka and diamond...).

Tesilk posted:

Pretty happy whit hte results, 

Keler Pierre posted:
Tesilk posted:

What about this converter D-link DMC-F30SC/A1A?

 

 

you can put optical bridge between switch and streamer: switch then short ethernet cable then tplink then 2 optical cables then tplink with hdplex ps then good ethernet cable then streamer.    There is also more expensive and simplier: etalon isolator.

For nas, good linear ps.     but maybe you knew all this before...

Pierre, what if I want to do a second optical bridge inside of the first one? What should be the setup in that case? 

Thanks Serge 

Sounds like a bridge too far to me! How can you have an optical bridge inside an optical bridge?

Being a network engineer I am bemused by this thread... what on earth are you trying to do? I can't see why you are wanting to add additional bridges into a network segment and effectively add latency. With TCP communication latency is usually a bad thing (albeit the latency increase will be small). We also know the current Naim streaming architecture is not happiest when you add latency.  If you are worried about common mode noise on the Ethernet lead, why don't you use a quality switch with a ground/earthed powersupply, or slap a few ferrite chokes around the Ethernet lead. If you really want to use fibre then use fibre SFPs, but of course Naim don't support at present, so the only real advantage is if you need more than 100 metres between streamer and switch.

 

Ok guys, about the second bridge option I saw someone writing on this forum.

Idea is simple, instead of going to the streamer after the first bridge, you do a second loop once again with 2 more media converters, and then connect the 4th converter to the streamer. 

I was trying to do it yesterday - did not work for me. 

Ok, will concentrate on the lpsu issues then, 

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Being a network engineer I am bemused by this thread... what on earth are you trying to do? I can't see why you are wanting to add additional bridges into a network segment and effectively add latency. With TCP communication latency is usually a bad thing (albeit the latency increase will be small). We also know the current Naim streaming architecture is not happiest when you add latency.  If you are worried about common mode noise on the Ethernet lead, why don't you use a quality switch with a ground/earthed powersupply, or slap a few ferrite chokes around the Ethernet lead. If you really want to use fibre then use fibre SFPs, but of course Naim don't support at present, so the only real advantage is if you need more than 100 metres between streamer and switch.

 

Simon I understand, but we are just having fun while trying different options. I think that after adding the bridge sound of 272 + XPS became even more detailed and kind of "analog" I would say. I hear clear difference with my ATCs. it is interesting to do some research in order to understand what does what to the sound. 

Thanks for the reply, but do you know what you are changing and why? Otherwise it all appears somewhat random making any cause and effect somewhat unlikely.. and you could be storing up trouble for later unwittingly and possibly papering over real issues that are best resolved.  Normally on such things KIS is the best consideration (keep it simple) ... at best adding complexity is going to reduce reliability and at worst create issues for now or later. But clearly each to their own... but I suggest just be ready to easily rip it out if you get sideffects like web radio, Tidal starting to buffer.. or strange enexpected glitches at the start of track playback..or SQ changes.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Being a network engineer I am bemused by this thread...

Simon - this forum is wrought with threads of folks seeking to add complexity to their systems. More has got to be better, right? Five blades shave better than two. I prefer Occam's razor.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Thanks for the reply, but do you know what you are changing and why? Otherwise it all appears somewhat random making any cause and effect somewhat unlikely.. and you could be storing up trouble for later unwittingly and possibly papering over real issues that are best resolved.  Normally on such things KIS is the best consideration (keep it simple) ... at best adding complexity is going to reduce reliability and at worst create issues for now or later. But clearly each to their own... but I suggest just be ready to easily rip it out if you get sideffects like web radio, Tidal starting to buffer.. or strange enexpected glitches at the start of track playback..or SQ changes.

Always thought that optical wire will be better that ethernet rj45, but not having optical inputs in Naim gear, saw this bridge option and decided to try it. It is very easy to undo if needed, and is pretty chip upgrade in fact. 

btw, we had a Naim execs here in Moscow a week ago, for the Hi-end show here, so I had a opportunity to chat with one of them.

A lot of changes will be in 2-3 years time as I understand, technically and also in design. And probably they will add all these options that will speed up network operations and streaming. Lets see...but for now I am very happy with 272. 

Tesilk posted.

Always thought that optical wire will be better that ethernet rj45, but not having optical inputs in Naim gear, saw this bridge option and decided to try .....

 

it depends what was one in wanting to achieve. One is not automatically better than the other. As Naim don't currently support fibre SFPs, but they do review this from time to time so I was told when last at Naim, then the only real advantage of fibre is distance, i.e. greater  than 100 metres. Yes if and when Naim introduce SFPs then there may be an advantage of running a fibre lead(s) from a fibre port switch to the streamer directly ( no bridges or wotnot) .... however do remember with fibre there are usually minimum distances.

If you are finding when using bridges it is decoupling noise in your home network, I would focus on what is creating that noise in the first place and perhaps look to replace or remedy. Anything creating and radiating large amounts of electrical noise is not good any where near sensitive audio equipment, but using expensive audio equipment as a kind of electro magnetic noise meter does feel a little extravagant... there are better tools for hunting down noise.

Tesilk posted:

Idea is simple, instead of going to the streamer after the first bridge, you do a second loop once again with 2 more media converters, and then connect the 4th converter to the streamer. 

 

So you go Cat5 - MC - Fibre - MC - Cat 5 - MC - Fibre - MC - Cat5 - Streamer?!! Now I, too, am bemused!

ChrisSU posted:
Tesilk posted:

Idea is simple, instead of going to the streamer after the first bridge, you do a second loop once again with 2 more media converters, and then connect the 4th converter to the streamer. 

 

So you go Cat5 - MC - Fibre - MC - Cat 5 - MC - Fibre - MC - Cat5 - Streamer?!! Now I, too, am bemused!

Non, cat 6a in my case. )))

Yeh, seems like looking for a miracle ))) but once again, someone did it before us and I was just trying to repeat his experience. 

No idea if it is technically possible or not btw

Ok guys, its been a while since my last post...

I took a break and was btw at Munchen Hi-End show, saw a lot of interesting things etc

But, going back to our discussion, I kept experimenting, and ended up with D-Link DMC 1000 chassis for media converters, installed now 3 pairs of 920 T/R converters in a row, so signal goes from one set to another, etc. I will post a picture. Using PSU of the unit.

Amazing sound quality so far with 272, never before I heard something comparable, speakers remain the same ATC SCM50 ASL

Until Naim introduce SFPs on their Ethernet interfaces, this is not really going to be providing a specific consequential benefit, and if you are hearing improvements, which no doubt you are, it's because you have almost certainly replaced deficiencies/issues elsewhere in your home network equipment, and not really anything to do with using fibre (Base - X) links per se, and remember depending on transceiver you will have minimum fibre distances (remember fibre is really designed for longer distances compared to twisted pair) ... so do keep an eye on  those corrupt frame counters, and be prepared to change transceiver and fibre mode.. however your picture seems to show embedded fixed fibre transceivers as opposed to using modular SFPs which seems strange and normally would not be ideal in my opinion as you can't vary to suit.

Simon

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Until Naim introduce SFPs on their Ethernet interfaces, this is not really going to be providing a specific consequential benefit, and if you are hearing improvements, which no doubt you are, it's because you have almost certainly replaced deficiencies/issues elsewhere in your home network equipment, and not really anything to do with using fibre (Base - X) links per se, and remember depending on transceiver you will have minimum fibre distances (remember fibre is really designed for longer distances compared to twisted pair) ... so do keep an eye on  those corrupt frame counters, and be prepared to change transceiver and fibre mode.. however your picture seems to show embedded fixed fibre transceivers as opposed to using modular SFPs which seems strange and normally would not be ideal in my opinion as you can't vary to suit.

Simon

Thanks Simon.

will do a test next with SFPs, using DMC-805G converters, the difference I hear is worth to continue investigating.

Serge

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Being a network engineer I am bemused by this thread... what on earth are you trying to do? I can't see why you are wanting to add additional bridges into a network segment and effectively add latency. With TCP communication latency is usually a bad thing (albeit the latency increase will be small). We also know the current Naim streaming architecture is not happiest when you add latency.  If you are worried about common mode noise on the Ethernet lead, why don't you use a quality switch with a ground/earthed powersupply, or slap a few ferrite chokes around the Ethernet lead. If you really want to use fibre then use fibre SFPs, but of course Naim don't support at present, so the only real advantage is if you need more than 100 metres between streamer and switch.

 

+1 great post, I've could not have said it any better!

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×