Fibre optic networking for audio using POF

Interesting Chris!  What's the advantage of POF vs. trad'l glass fibre?

Hi Bart, the main advantage for me is that you can do the cable terminations yourself very easily, meaning that you can first thread it through very small holes in your walls. Also, there is a range of switches and media converters available - you could probably source these for glass fibre too, but they would be rather more expensive, and not aimed at the consumer/home LAN market. 

Just to add....this evening I reverted to my old wired Ethernet connection to see if I could discern any difference, and sure enough, a layer of mush seems to have descended over the music. I wasn't really aware of this before I changed to the fibre optic network, but now that I've reverted to copper cable, the effect is clear. I had no idea what, if anything, to expect from this on the sound quality front, but I'm now convinced it's been a good move. 

Hi Chris,  

Interested to hear your perception of "mush" via copper as digital signals don't degrade gracefully, meaning you'll get dropouts and stutters if there's a problem with the stream.  The transmitted bits will be exactly the same when they reach your Naim, regardless of the medium used.  

Cheers!

Mrs Wogan's lemon drizzle cake posted:

Hi Chris,  

Interested to hear your perception of "mush" via copper as digital signals don't degrade gracefully, meaning you'll get dropouts and stutters if there's a problem with the stream.  The transmitted bits will be exactly the same when they reach your Naim, regardless of the medium used.  

Cheers!

You mean . . . bits are bits?  I've never heard anyone say it quite that way before!

Oh please no, not the 'bits are bits' debate again.  After the last debate I ended up with an IPhone connected to my dac by twin and earth cable, sounds exactly the same as an NDS into my dac, saved me a fortune 

Bart posted:

Mrs Wogan's lemon drizzle cake posted:

Hi Chris,  

Interested to hear your perception of "mush" via copper as digital signals don't degrade gracefully, meaning you'll get dropouts and stutters if there's a problem with the stream.  The transmitted bits will be exactly the same when they reach your Naim, regardless of the medium used.  

Cheers!

You mean . . . bits are bits?  I've never heard anyone say it quite that way before!

I was hoping this wouldn't end up as yet another bits are bits argument! What I heard was certainly not dropouts or stutters, just clearer sound with less background noise. I think it might be what some people refer to as more 'inky blackness.'

Maybe it is stuttering at imperceptibly short intervals that it sound like mush.

Sorry, should remember what my mother told me, 'sarcasm is the lowest form of wit'. 

This new-fangled optical network stuff does sound jolly interesting though.

Chris, don't let the naysayers (i.e. the 'digital is really analogue at the end day' deniers) put you off. I want to hear more about optical networks. 

Chris, it's inevitable.  Just grin and bear it! 

nigelb posted:

Maybe it is stuttering at imperceptibly short intervals that it sound like mush.

Sorry, should remember what my mother told me, 'sarcasm is the lowest form of wit'. 

This new-fangled optical network stuff does sound jolly interesting though.

For all I know, you could be right about the mush explanation!

I'm not sure the optical stuff is even very new-fangled, POF is apparently already widely used in the automotive industry, for example. Only time will tell weather or not it becomes popular for home networks.

Optical is new-fangled when it comes to domestic audio networks and I think it could be promising. I have done a lot to my system to reduce the amount of noise that inevitably afflicts it and adversely affects SQ. I believe I have gained real sonic benefits from the noise-reducing changes I have made so far. So a means of linking network devices together that simply cannot induce, transmit or conduct noise has got great potential in my book.

Let's see.

Sarcasm is only the second-lowest form of wit.  Penis jokes is the lowest. (We call them "dick jokes" here in the States.)

Hi Nigel, the medium over which you transmit data is completely transparent to the device on the end of the wire, in our case a Naim steamer.   Optical or copper will sound the same, unless of course you're talking about packet loss?  

...and the lowest of the low - sarcastic dick jokes?

nigelb posted:

...and the lowest of the low - sarcastic dick jokes?

Please don't call me a sarcastic dick, I was being serious 

nigelb posted:

Sorry, should remember what my mother told me, 'sarcasm is the lowest form of wit'. 

 

Lowest form of wit - maybe that's why sarcasm ingratiates so many people.

nigelb posted:

...and the lowest of the low - sarcastic dick jokes?

Almost. Throw a gay reference into that mix and I think you've reached the bottom.

nigelb posted:

Optical is new-fangled when it comes to domestic audio networks and I think it could be promising. I have done a lot to my system to reduce the amount of noise that inevitably afflicts it and adversely affects SQ. I believe I have gained real sonic benefits from the noise-reducing changes I have made so far. So a means of linking network devices together that simply cannot induce, transmit or conduct noise has got great potential in my book.

Let's see.

Actually, I think Toslink is pretty much the same thing, and that's been around for a few decades....but all I really know is that it's new to me, and it works. 

Mrs Wogan's lemon drizzle cake posted:

Hi Nigel, the medium over which you transmit data is completely transparent to the device on the end of the wire, in our case a Naim steamer.   Optical or copper will sound the same, unless of course you're talking about packet loss?  

I am not an electrical engineer but I would have thought that a metal ethernet cable has a greater potential to induce and transmit noise to a network device than an optical cable. Of course an ethernet cable is intended to be purely a digital cable but has the potential to also act as an analogue one too. I guess the problem with optical is the quality of the converters that turn optical into digital and vice versa. But I simply don't want to get into the bits are bits thing yet again as this argument can dominate threads like this and it would not be fair to the OP to get sidetracked. Lets wait and see if optical networks can be developed to 'sound' better than ethernet. Proof of the pudding and all that.

As it was Andrew Everard who alerted me to the possibility of using fibre, I hope he won't mind me quoting from his post on the matter:

"I’ve just got round to putting in another fibre-optic connection in place of copper cable, and this time there’s definitely been a boost in performance. Yes, stock up on rotten vegetables and wet sponges, folks – I’m going on record as saying this one really does sound better." 

ChrisSU posted:

Just to add....this evening I reverted to my old wired Ethernet connection to see if I could discern any difference, and sure enough, a layer of mush seems to have descended over the music. I wasn't really aware of this before I changed to the fibre optic network, but now that I've reverted to copper cable, the effect is clear. I had no idea what, if anything, to expect from this on the sound quality front, but I'm now convinced it's been a good move. 

well done ChrisSU ... been through similar experiences with placement of LAN components, dressing of LAN cables relative to power and use of different specs of ethernet cables.  now this issue -- which has come u a few times in the various threads -- and in my own exchange with Chord. its good you have adopted the simple 'if it sounds better, it is better' -- without worrying too much about the somewhat blikered 'bits are bits'. 

enjoy...

ken

nigelb posted:

I am not an electrical engineer but I would have thought that a metal ethernet cable has a greater potential to induce and transmit noise to a network device than an optical cable. Of course an ethernet cable is intended to be purely a digital cable but has the potential to also act as an analogue one too. I guess the problem with optical is the quality of the converters that turn optical into digital and vice versa. But I simply don't want to get into the bits are bits thing yet again as this argument can dominate threads like this and it would not be fair to the OP to get sidetracked. Lets wait and see if optical networks can be developed to 'sound' better than ethernet. Proof of the pudding and all that.

i suspect fibre may actually become more and more common with time.  i must admit that for now, ai am not really interested in the theory (perhaps eventually) -- just the fact that its seems to have ositive impact on SQ in our streaming systems. Therefore looking foward to more reorts of actual experiences.

enjoy...

ken

I suspect most home users will continue to use ethernet over copper.  This is due to the fact that the physical link layer is really just a way to transport bits around, and copper (cat 5) is more than up to the job. 

But the problem with copper is that it's capable of carrying unwelcome extra baggage along with the bits, and that seems to be where the problems lie. 

ChrisSU posted:

As it was Andrew Everard who alerted me to the possibility of using fibre, I hope he won't mind me quoting from his post on the matter:

"I’ve just got round to putting in another fibre-optic connection in place of copper cable, and this time there’s definitely been a boost in performance. Yes, stock up on rotten vegetables and wet sponges, folks – I’m going on record as saying this one really does sound better." 

Andrew Everhard seems to hold his own opinion in high esteem, given his need to qualify what he writes with the statement "I'm going on record as saying ...".

But the problem with copper is that it's capable of carrying unwelcome extra baggage along with the bits, and that seems to be where the problems lie. 

What exactly is this "unwelcome extra baggage" Chris?   How does it effect sound quality and how do we measure it?