Ethernet cable comparisons - a few thoughts

pps (too late to edit): I just realized you may have meant “g” (earth gravity) rather than “G” (Newtonian gravitational constant)... in which case the answer is “yes” the noise from waves hitting distant shores can be identified. Sorry for being perhaps too literal here? (/thread hijack ends)

alan33 posted:

SB955i posted:

And would a G figure prominently in your research?

Thanks SB955i -

Not a G, not for us (yet)... the experiment I was referring to is about determining h. 

Glad you’re thinking about things so deeply, it’s cool stuff. I like breaking out of the digital comms thought process to consider everything from its (underlying) analog side; that’s where the action lives here.

Ground plane coupling, or high(er) RF leakage from poorly made twisted pairs, could be implicated, I agree... but there are likely way too many influences to isolate. That’s why (in the other thread started by Bryce) I proposed that someone with an interest in this and who hears differences with different cables might like to take the cable out completely and compare against WiFi , especially in the new Uniti boxes which apparently have separate internal optimization for Ethernet vs WiFi network connections. This would be especially interesting for folks who have found that there are big gains to be had from fibre converters in the “last leg”. 

Regards alan

ps - not sure if it was autocorrect or me, but “phreaking” has a “ph” not an “f”; sorry about that!

I think these threads are invaluable.

The streamers work out of the box, but as most of us are concerned with overall sound quality for a given piece of equipment or set-up, it's fascinating to determine which mode of data delivery works best and other tweaks which benefit the system.

I've neglected wi-fi apart from using Chromecast in the Qobuz iOS app primarily as I avoid wi-fi whenever I can because I've had ethernet installed throughout the house recently.

A little surprised to see that the Nova does not support gigabit ethernet to be honest not that it should matter in practice.

Alley Cat posted:

A little surprised to see that the Nova does not support gigabit ethernet to be honest not that it should matter in practice.

The slower data clock in Fast Ethernet (100Base-T) is easier to isolate from the DAC and analogue electronics (easier than 1000Base-T Gigabit Ethernet)

Huge posted:

French Rooster posted:

SB955i posted:

Hi Alan33, thank you for shedding light, I now have a few more things to consider.  I wasn't aware of this hacking technique so I have some more learning to do. Very interesting.  

I am however interested in this ground noise experiment to see if that is the noise injection route.  I tried it on my equipment but could not discern a difference, at full volume.  My hearing is not perfect though, as I have a slight tinnitus ( or I'm 'hearing' my own wifi! ).

And would a G figure prominently in your research?

 

if you want to isolate your network from noise, i recommend you the network bridge ( 2 little fmc converters with optical fiber).  You have the topic from december on that :  ethernet tweaks.  For around 100GBP.  A wonderful jump in sound quality !

The same can be achieved with a simple unscreened Cat5e coupler (Ethernet is balanced, so that DM noise is normally mostly symmetrical and the CMRR all but eliminate CM noise); when combined with ferrites, in my experience, the noise is reduced to near irrelevant levels.  In fact with the right combination of ferrites, I've been able to remove the unscreened coupler as well, with no degradation of performance.

If you're worried about large differences in the potential of the protective ground connection(s), medical installation grade Ethernet isolators probably have less impact on the signal data timing (both the frame timing and individual switching rise-times) that using fibre converters at each end.

Not experimented with ferrites - any preferred supplier or tips? Or is it application dependent?

Can't quite follow the purpose of the medical grade Ethernet isolators - are they similar to spike protectors to prevent surges trashing medical devices or do they have other benefits?  Presumably nothing to do with privacy protection of said devices' data.

Huge posted:

Alley Cat posted:

A little surprised to see that the Nova does not support gigabit ethernet to be honest not that it should matter in practice.

The slower data clock in Fast Ethernet (100Base-T) is easier to isolate from the DAC and analogue electronics (easier than 1000Base-T Gigabit Ethernet)

Once again, thanks for your insight here - one might assume that the slower component would be cheaper but in reality more legacy components might cost more if availability was limited I guess....

Alley Cat posted:

Huge posted:

French Rooster posted:

SB955i posted:

Hi Alan33, thank you for shedding light, I now have a few more things to consider.  I wasn't aware of this hacking technique so I have some more learning to do. Very interesting.  

I am however interested in this ground noise experiment to see if that is the noise injection route.  I tried it on my equipment but could not discern a difference, at full volume.  My hearing is not perfect though, as I have a slight tinnitus ( or I'm 'hearing' my own wifi! ).

And would a G figure prominently in your research?

 

if you want to isolate your network from noise, i recommend you the network bridge ( 2 little fmc converters with optical fiber).  You have the topic from december on that :  ethernet tweaks.  For around 100GBP.  A wonderful jump in sound quality !

The same can be achieved with a simple unscreened Cat5e coupler (Ethernet is balanced, so that DM noise is normally mostly symmetrical and the CMRR all but eliminate CM noise); when combined with ferrites, in my experience, the noise is reduced to near irrelevant levels.  In fact with the right combination of ferrites, I've been able to remove the unscreened coupler as well, with no degradation of performance.

If you're worried about large differences in the potential of the protective ground connection(s), medical installation grade Ethernet isolators probably have less impact on the signal data timing (both the frame timing and individual switching rise-times) that using fibre converters at each end.

Not experimented with ferrites - any preferred supplier or tips? Or is it application dependent?

Can't quite follow the purpose of the medical grade Ethernet isolators - are they similar to spike protectors to prevent surges trashing medical devices or do they have other benefits?  Presumably nothing to do with privacy protection of said devices' data.

Medical Ethernet Isolators are used for (electrically) sensitive working areas where sensitive and potentially safety critical instrumentation and working equipment may be in use (such as operating theatres).  The intent is to allow digital data to flow whilst providing a very high level of DC isolation and static discharge prevention.

My preferred type of ferrites are those made by Würth Elektronik (available from CPC Farnell).  Their LF (<1MHz) performance and HF performance (1GHz) are both among the very best of any general purpose ferrites (others tend to excel in one band at the expense of the other).  In fact, the LF performance is even starting to approach that of the LF specific Fairrite MnZn ferrites (which are very poor at HF).

Huge posted:

Alley Cat posted:

Huge posted:

French Rooster posted:

SB955i posted:

Hi Alan33, thank you for shedding light, I now have a few more things to consider.  I wasn't aware of this hacking technique so I have some more learning to do. Very interesting.  

I am however interested in this ground noise experiment to see if that is the noise injection route.  I tried it on my equipment but could not discern a difference, at full volume.  My hearing is not perfect though, as I have a slight tinnitus ( or I'm 'hearing' my own wifi! ).

And would a G figure prominently in your research?

 

if you want to isolate your network from noise, i recommend you the network bridge ( 2 little fmc converters with optical fiber).  You have the topic from december on that :  ethernet tweaks.  For around 100GBP.  A wonderful jump in sound quality !

The same can be achieved with a simple unscreened Cat5e coupler (Ethernet is balanced, so that DM noise is normally mostly symmetrical and the CMRR all but eliminate CM noise); when combined with ferrites, in my experience, the noise is reduced to near irrelevant levels.  In fact with the right combination of ferrites, I've been able to remove the unscreened coupler as well, with no degradation of performance.

If you're worried about large differences in the potential of the protective ground connection(s), medical installation grade Ethernet isolators probably have less impact on the signal data timing (both the frame timing and individual switching rise-times) that using fibre converters at each end.

Not experimented with ferrites - any preferred supplier or tips? Or is it application dependent?

Can't quite follow the purpose of the medical grade Ethernet isolators - are they similar to spike protectors to prevent surges trashing medical devices or do they have other benefits?  Presumably nothing to do with privacy protection of said devices' data.

Medical Ethernet Isolators are used for (electrically) sensitive working areas where sensitive and potentially safety critical instrumentation and working equipment may be in use (such as operating theatres).  The intent is to allow digital data to flow whilst providing a very high level of DC isolation and static discharge prevention.

My preferred type of ferrites are those made by Würth Elektronik (available from CPC Farnell).  Their LF (<1MHz) performance and HF performance (1GHz) are both among the very best of any general purpose ferrites (others tend to excel in one band at the expense of the other).  In fact, the LF performance is even starting to approach that of the LF specific Fairrite MnZn ferrites (which are very poor at HF).

Thanks Huge

I may well not be aware of a relevant ferrite thread but assuming modest outlay gives benefits where are the best sites for deployment and which end of the cables?

There seems to be a lot of focus of common mode noise in the above posts... with Ethernet unless you are connecting to poor quality fibre converters or cheap switches / router switch ports the common mode noise will be minimal and can be effectively dealt with a ferrite clamp around the cable if prevalent.

The biggest cause of digital cross talk noise in my experience is Ethernet twisted pair physical layer clock noise/jitter... quite a few engineering articles on this on the web and vendor white papers... this can be dealt with by using quality terminating equipment some with compliance to tight EMC specs (such as a 2960 switch) . If using fibre media converters for whatever reason, do get a specification for EMC noise and clock accuracy if you can...I suspect most consumer media converters are poor here.. certainly given the low cost of them..

The other cause of noise, and this is network noise, is excessive broadcast or indiscriminate multicast IP address traffic.. the latter can be dealt with by using devices that correctly interpret IGMP and filter, the former is harder to deal with other than set a dedicated audio subnet.. with a proper internet router, but this is probably beyond most on this forum.. but can make a difference.. This network noise activates  the streamer NIC hardware

The other area that improves SQ on streamers is to decrease the variance of interframe timing... this can make a big difference and can be like the difference between WAV and FLAC. Again for most this can only probably be handled by trial and error of trying different media servers/operating systems..

As far as GigE (1000BaseT) support, this is unnecessary for streamers, and 1000BaseT has a higher RF load than 10/100BaseT and so should be easier to decouple. 1000BaseT uses and modulates more twisted pairs than 10/100BaseT.

Alley Cat posted:

Thanks Huge

I may well not be aware of a relevant ferrite thread but assuming modest outlay gives benefits where are the best sites for deployment and which end of the cables?

https://forums.naimaudio.com/to...43#73652630704665043

Note also Simon's reply above - however it's more expensive and trickier to deal with those mechanisms.

In my view:
First get the network & streamer working reliably.
Then deal with the CM noise (quite easy and cheaper - unless you decide to use megabucks cable instead of ferrites)
Then deal with electrical noise in the data lines by increasing the quality of network devices.  (As Simon points out, the most significant part of this is the time based noise, particularly given the electrically balanced nature of XXXXBase-T transmission).

alan33 posted:

pps (too late to edit): I just realized you may have meant “g” (earth gravity) rather than “G” (Newtonian gravitational constant)... in which case the answer is “yes” the noise from waves hitting distant shores can be identified. Sorry for being perhaps too literal here? (/thread hijack ends)

Very nice to meet you, and actually in awe of the work and accomplishment. Wow.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

There seems to be a lot of focus of common mode noise in the above posts... with Ethernet unless you are connecting to poor quality fibre converters or cheap switches / router switch ports the common mode noise will be minimal and can be effectively dealt with a ferrite clamp around the cable if prevalent.

The biggest cause of digital cross talk noise in my experience is Ethernet twisted pair physical layer clock noise/jitter... quite a few engineering articles on this on the web and vendor white papers... this can be dealt with by using quality terminating equipment some with compliance to tight EMC specs (such as a 2960 switch) . If using fibre media converters for whatever reason, do get a specification for EMC noise and clock accuracy if you can...I suspect most consumer media converters are poor here.. certainly given the low cost of them..

The other cause of noise, and this is network noise, is excessive broadcast or indiscriminate multicast IP address traffic.. the latter can be dealt with by using devices that correctly interpret IGMP and filter, the former is harder to deal with other than set a dedicated audio subnet.. with a proper internet router, but this is probably beyond most on this forum.. but can make a difference.. This network noise activates  the streamer NIC hardware

The other area that improves SQ on streamers is to decrease the variance of interframe timing... this can make a big difference and can be like the difference between WAV and FLAC. Again for most this can only probably be handled by trial and error of trying different media servers/operating systems..

As far as GigE (1000BaseT) support, this is unnecessary for streamers, and 1000BaseT has a higher RF load than 10/100BaseT and so should be easier to decouple. 1000BaseT uses and modulates more twisted pairs than 10/100BaseT.

 

Simon, this is incredibly helpful, and though I suspect it has been discussed ad infinitum on earlier threads it's not always as easy as one assumes to find the info.

Nice to hear clarification of the GigE noise issue.

Alley Cat posted:

French Rooster posted:

SB955i posted:

Hi Alan33, thank you for shedding light, I now have a few more things to consider.  I wasn't aware of this hacking technique so I have some more learning to do. Very interesting.  

I am however interested in this ground noise experiment to see if that is the noise injection route.  I tried it on my equipment but could not discern a difference, at full volume.  My hearing is not perfect though, as I have a slight tinnitus ( or I'm 'hearing' my own wifi! ).

And would a G figure prominently in your research?

 

if you want to isolate your network from noise, i recommend you the network bridge ( 2 little fmc converters with optical fiber).  You have the topic from december on that :  ethernet tweaks.  For around 100GBP.  A wonderful jump in sound quality !

Must re-visit that thread - does a fancy ethernet cable make any difference after the 2nd fmc converter to the streamer too?

yes it does, i have tried.  There must be something more than noise rejection.

Huge posted:

Alley Cat posted:

Thanks Huge

I may well not be aware of a relevant ferrite thread but assuming modest outlay gives benefits where are the best sites for deployment and which end of the cables?

https://forums.naimaudio.com/to...43#73652630704665043

Note also Simon's reply above - however it's more expensive and trickier to deal with those mechanisms.

In my view:
First get the network & streamer working reliably.
Then deal with the CM noise (quite easy and cheaper - unless you decide to use megabucks cable instead of ferrites)
Then deal with electrical noise in the data lines by increasing the quality of network devices.  (As Simon points out, the most significant part of this is the time based noise, particularly given the electrically balanced nature of XXXXBase-T transmission).

I'm pretty happy with my network currently - had some work done at the house including ethernet to most rooms and it's so much better (as expected) than my previous Devolo Powerline solution which in fairness worked brilliantly for getting ethernet where I needed it.

Currently have my ISP's modem (VDSL/FTTC close to 80/20 Mbps transfers) running in bridge mode to a Ubiquiti ErLite-3, with 2 subnets, one dedicated for my work VPN connection, the other for domestic duties.  The domestic subnet goes to an 8 port Netgear Pro switch which distributes to various rooms where ethernet is beneficial (wish I'd gone for a few more hard wired connections, but there you go).  The naff WD NAD is currently close to TV and media boxes/Oppo and connected to a visible TP-Link switch which was an utter bargain and looks good to boot.

Maybe some scope to move the NAS and change switches to better components where need.  Ultimately plan to have some Ubuiqui access points to replace an Airport Express which does pretty well currently for wi-fi access (also have an Extreme, older Express somewhere, would like a TC apart from silly costs for low capacity and the fact their EOL since Apple disbanded the Airport team).

French Rooster posted:

Alley Cat posted:

French Rooster posted:

SB955i posted:

Hi Alan33, thank you for shedding light, I now have a few more things to consider.  I wasn't aware of this hacking technique so I have some more learning to do. Very interesting.  

I am however interested in this ground noise experiment to see if that is the noise injection route.  I tried it on my equipment but could not discern a difference, at full volume.  My hearing is not perfect though, as I have a slight tinnitus ( or I'm 'hearing' my own wifi! ).

And would a G figure prominently in your research?

 

if you want to isolate your network from noise, i recommend you the network bridge ( 2 little fmc converters with optical fiber).  You have the topic from december on that :  ethernet tweaks.  For around 100GBP.  A wonderful jump in sound quality !

Must re-visit that thread - does a fancy ethernet cable make any difference after the 2nd fmc converter to the streamer too?

yes it does, i have tried.  There must be something more than noise rejection.

Interesting - could RF interference alone explain it I wonder?  It matters not really as if there is audible improvement it seems worth trying.

Huge posted:

French Rooster posted:

SB955i posted:

Hi Alan33, thank you for shedding light, I now have a few more things to consider.  I wasn't aware of this hacking technique so I have some more learning to do. Very interesting.  

I am however interested in this ground noise experiment to see if that is the noise injection route.  I tried it on my equipment but could not discern a difference, at full volume.  My hearing is not perfect though, as I have a slight tinnitus ( or I'm 'hearing' my own wifi! ).

And would a G figure prominently in your research?

 

if you want to isolate your network from noise, i recommend you the network bridge ( 2 little fmc converters with optical fiber).  You have the topic from december on that :  ethernet tweaks.  For around 100GBP.  A wonderful jump in sound quality !

The same can be achieved with a simple unscreened Cat5e coupler (Ethernet is balanced, so that DM noise is normally mostly symmetrical and the CMRR all but eliminate CM noise); when combined with ferrites, in my experience, the noise is reduced to near irrelevant levels.  In fact with the right combination of ferrites, I've been able to remove the unscreened coupler as well, with no degradation of performance.

If you're worried about large differences in the potential of the protective ground connection(s), medical installation grade Ethernet isolators probably have less impact on the signal data timing (both the frame timing and individual switching rise-times) that using fibre converters at each end.

probably the ferrite option may do the same, i have not tried. The medical ethernet isolators have bad feedbacks for sound quality, from some posts i read.  As for timing, there is absolutely no negative effects, i have noticed no issues on hifi areas as dynamics, bass, involvement...with the network bridge.

French Rooster posted:

Huge posted:

The same can be achieved with a simple unscreened Cat5e coupler (Ethernet is balanced, so that DM noise is normally mostly symmetrical and the CMRR all but eliminate CM noise); when combined with ferrites, in my experience, the noise is reduced to near irrelevant levels.  In fact with the right combination of ferrites, I've been able to remove the unscreened coupler as well, with no degradation of performance.

If you're worried about large differences in the potential of the protective ground connection(s), medical installation grade Ethernet isolators probably have less impact on the signal data timing (both the frame timing and individual switching rise-times) that using fibre converters at each end.

probably the ferrite option may do the same, i have not tried. The medical ethernet isolators have bad feedbacks for sound quality, from some posts i read.  As for timing, there is absolutely no negative effects, i have noticed no issues on hifi areas as dynamics, bass, involvement...with the network bridge.

The 'timing' concerned isn't related to 'HiFi timing' of the decoded analogue signal; instead it's to do with the timing of elements of the digital signal (and how these digital timing variances interact with the analogue electronics).  The medical isolators do exactly the same job as the fibre link will (at least if the fibre link is working over short distances) they are just higher quality products, produced to higher quality standards.

The particular reason for using fibre is to operate Ethernet links over much longer distances.

Huge posted:

French Rooster posted:

Huge posted:

The same can be achieved with a simple unscreened Cat5e coupler (Ethernet is balanced, so that DM noise is normally mostly symmetrical and the CMRR all but eliminate CM noise); when combined with ferrites, in my experience, the noise is reduced to near irrelevant levels.  In fact with the right combination of ferrites, I've been able to remove the unscreened coupler as well, with no degradation of performance.

If you're worried about large differences in the potential of the protective ground connection(s), medical installation grade Ethernet isolators probably have less impact on the signal data timing (both the frame timing and individual switching rise-times) that using fibre converters at each end.

probably the ferrite option may do the same, i have not tried. The medical ethernet isolators have bad feedbacks for sound quality, from some posts i read.  As for timing, there is absolutely no negative effects, i have noticed no issues on hifi areas as dynamics, bass, involvement...with the network bridge.

The 'timing' concerned isn't related to 'HiFi timing' of the decoded analogue signal; instead it's to do with the timing of elements of the digital signal (and how these digital timing variances interact with the analogue electronics).  The medical isolators do exactly the same job as the fibre link will (at least if the fibre link is working over short distances) they are just higher quality products, produced to higher quality standards.

The particular reason for using fibre is to operate Ethernet links over much longer distances.

a lot of members on different forums have tested the medical grade ethernet isolators but were in general not satisfied. Some hifi ethernet isolators as acoustic revive, etalon isolator, giso, have more positive feedbacks. I have tried the acoustic revive lan rl1 isolator but found the network bridge on linear ps more positive on sound quality( for improvement). Without the linear ps on the 2 fmc converters, the acoustic revive gave the same results as the fmc.

The problem with the devices like the acoustic revive lan rl1 and GISO is that they are passive devices and (inevitably to some extent) degrade the performance of the data lines in terms of 'cleanness' of the digital transitions; they are thus likely to increase jitter of the received signal.

As you point out, the advantage with your FMCs is mostly down to the low noise PSU.  A well designed active solution using opto-isolators would be more eficient still as it will provide the same isolation but will ensure greater end-to-end signal integrity through a better controlled opto-electronic system.

Huge, don’t forget it’s the quality of physical layer clocks that are important... many of the so called  ‘media bridge’ devices I have seen that some on this forum are using  look decidedly low end quality. If one was serious I would be looking to use a quality switch backplane with quality fibre SFP transceivers inserted to connect one’s fibre. 

http://www.fiber-optic-solutio...nsceiver-module.html

Inter frame timing is unlikely to be affected or relevant... this is working at a lower level

Simon indeed.

Best is to use a good quality fibre link designed for the purpose (quality switch with fibre output to a streamer with an inbuilt fibre input) - but Naim hardware isn't fibre enabled!  So...

Failing that use the system for which the hardware is designed using good quality low noise network components most specifically where attention has been paid to logical and physical signal integrity at the design and implementation stages.

Least good option is to try to patch the system up after the event (isolators, FMCs, after-market low noise power supplies, ferrets etc)!

Yep good summary

Huge posted:

Simon indeed.

Best is to use a good quality fibre link designed for the purpose (quality switch with fibre output to a streamer with an inbuilt fibre input) - but Naim hardware isn't fibre enabled!  So...

Failing that use the system for which the hardware is designed using good quality low noise network components most specifically where attention has been paid to logical and physical signal integrity at the design and implementation stages.

Least good option is to try to patch the system up after the event (isolators, FMCs, after-market low noise power supplies, ferrets etc)!

i can’t disagree with you because i have no technical knowledge.  But i have noticed no lack in signal integrity, no lack of timing or prat or other coins.

Melco use inbuilt technology to isolate the network, i don’t know if that is opto isolators. I have tested the melco at home with my nds and found a bit lack of involvement.

Perhaps in the future naim will develop a technology in his streamers or servers to isolate noice from the network, but for now this little network bridge is a marvel for sound quality, i strongly recommend you to test. You can return easily the 3 components on amazon.

French Rooster posted:

Huge posted:

Simon indeed.

Best is to use a good quality fibre link designed for the purpose (quality switch with fibre output to a streamer with an inbuilt fibre input) - but Naim hardware isn't fibre enabled!  So...

Failing that use the system for which the hardware is designed using good quality low noise network components most specifically where attention has been paid to logical and physical signal integrity at the design and implementation stages.

Least good option is to try to patch the system up after the event (isolators, FMCs, after-market low noise power supplies, ferrets etc)!

i can’t disagree with you because i have no technical knowledge.  But i have noticed no lack in signal integrity, no lack of timing or prat or other coins.

Melco use inbuilt technology to isolate the network, i don’t know if that is opto isolators. I have tested the melco at home with my nds and found a bit lack of involvement.

Perhaps in the future naim will develop a technology in his streamers or servers to isolate noice from the network, but for now this little network bridge is a marvel for sound quality, i strongly recommend you to test. You can return easily the 3 components on amazon.

Don't forget that changes in data transmission at the logical or physical layers of the digital domain do not direct (i.e. linearly) affect any of the analogue audio parameters (FR, PRaT timing, involvement etc.).  Non-ideal behaviour of transmission in the digital domain has an effect on the playback equipment itself, rather than the analogue signal; and thus they only have an indirect effect on the analogue signal.  It should also be noted that there is always some non-ideal behaviour in the physical layer of the digital signal transmission - perfect systems haven't been invented yet - and one of our objectives is to minimise this.

This means that the same change that alters one analogue parameter in one set-up may have a completely different (or opposite) effect in a different set-up even if the set-ups appear superficially similar.

Taking this information further, sometimes particular degradations of the digital transmission can have an effect on the playback equipment that actually appears to be beneficial, as they can partially offset some other non-ideal behaviour in the analogue domain.

Unless you have actually tested all the parameters of the digital transmission system in your set-up (and that's expensive and hard to do!), whether any particular approach (i.e. a specific set of non-ideal behaviours in the digital domain) appears to give a better result in your set-up doesn't mean that it will work well in anyone else's set-up.  Indeed it may completely upset their set-up - there's just no way to know.

French Rooster posted:

Huge posted:

Simon indeed.

Best is to use a good quality fibre link designed for the purpose (quality switch with fibre output to a streamer with an inbuilt fibre input) - but Naim hardware isn't fibre enabled!  So...

Failing that use the system for which the hardware is designed using good quality low noise network components most specifically where attention has been paid to logical and physical signal integrity at the design and implementation stages.

Least good option is to try to patch the system up after the event (isolators, FMCs, after-market low noise power supplies, ferrets etc)!

i can’t disagree with you because i have no technical knowledge.  But i have noticed no lack in signal integrity, no lack of timing or prat or other coins.

Melco use inbuilt technology to isolate the network, i don’t know if that is opto isolators. I have tested the melco at home with my nds and found a bit lack of involvement.

Perhaps in the future naim will develop a technology in his streamers or servers to isolate noice from the network, but for now this little network bridge is a marvel for sound quality, i strongly recommend you to test. You can return easily the 3 components on amazon.

Naim have long been using optical isolation in their streamers - at least in the NDX, so probably others, too. That begs the question, now might external optical isolation provide any further benefit?

ChrisSU posted:

Naim have long been using optical isolation in their streamers - at least in the NDX, so probably others, too. That begs the question, now might external optical isolation provide any further benefit?

I'm inclined to agree Chris,  I've tried some of the passive isolators more than once & have not been convinced, some have changed the SQ but to my ears not for the better.   The only connection I found that might have been a slight improvement was the router-switch branch where I assumed it might be helping with broadband noise,  but £££ wise far away from worth it.   I have not experienced a powered fibre ethernet link,  but I'm concerned about adding two more more power supplies,  & irrespective of SMPS or LPS,  both have the potential of injecting noise into the section of network they are connected to.    I will go fibre one day I'm sure,  but not until we can have a whole fibre network with the renderer, switch & NAS with their own fibre connections.