Fiber Media Converter for audio streaming

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, 

Kevin Richardson posted:

Can someone give a list of required components to do this? Sounds like a fun experiment.

Read more at http://www.audiostream.com/con...#6oKf1o6fvXj7LowS.99

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. 

btw, do you guys now what is the price of XPS DR upgrade in UK?

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!

I thought i'd reply here rather than in system pictures - I've just read the thread and am still really not clear why the network setup is so complex - I can understand adding a media converter in the chain for isolation purposes may benefit but i take it from the multiple fibres above that  you are running a number of media converters in series ? I don't understand what this complexity brings to quite a simple problem 

James

james n posted:

 

I thought i'd reply here rather than in system pictures - I've just read the thread and am still really not clear why the network setup is so complex - I can understand adding a media converter in the chain for isolation purposes may benefit but i take it from the multiple fibres above that  you are running a number of media converters in series ? I don't understand what this complexity brings to quite a simple problem 

James

James,

actually I decided to complicate my life and to see the result - as I had a possibility to put 7 pairs of converters together in one box - so I did it, consider just for fun. But I really like the result. So if I am bored with it one day - maybe I will trow it away and get back to simplicity. 

Serge 

Fair play Serge - if it works for you that is all that matters. I was just curious about the setup so thanks for answering my question, Love those ATC's 

James

james n posted:

Fair play Serge - if it works for you that is all that matters. I was just curious about the setup so thanks for answering my question, Love those ATC's 

James

 

Thanks James - I love them too! And they sound so incredible, so that I am biased, if it is due to my complications, or its just my speakers that sing better every single day...

Serge 

Tesilk posted:

I've been thinking about this also...

Read more at http://www.audiostream.com/con...#6oKf1o6fvXj7LowS.99

Any comments, maybe somebody did it with Naim gear? In my case, I plan to insert it between 272 and WD NAS servers and D-Link routers.

Serge

What would the advantage of this be other than if you have a very long run ~75M?

DUPREE posted:

Tesilk posted:

I've been thinking about this also...

Read more at http://www.audiostream.com/con...#6oKf1o6fvXj7LowS.99

Any comments, maybe somebody did it with Naim gear? In my case, I plan to insert it between 272 and WD NAS servers and D-Link routers.

Serge

What would the advantage of this be other than if you have a very long run ~75M?

from my experience - incredible depth, detail level and stage - can't explain why and how though...