Yes - of course, but electricity to light converters adds distortions, maybe more than interferences adds?
PS
âfiber-ethernet convertersâ
Are you sure, that there is no ethernet on your new fiber cable 
That is a rather sweeping statement. Do you have any evidence that in the context of this set up that âdistortionâ is created and how exactly would this impact the digital data getting through? Even if conceivably, this was such a badly designed product so as to corrupt the digital data going though it, RAAT would detect and correct any errors in the data.
The link points to one of the Michael Lavorgna pieces, recently fired from Audiostream. He would never use anything that is not idiotically overpriced. And yes he heard the difference between simply overpriced network cable Audioquest 10k Ethernet cable. So can you 
Which Cat 7 cable? If itâs shielded and the shield is connected to the metal connectors on both ends, you might be un-doing some of the benefits of the fiber isolation⌠a leakage current / ground loop may go through the shield, via your DAC side FMCâs power supply.
Unless you were powering the DAC-side FMC with a battery then you might even be technically better off with the Cat 5e UTP you mentioned âŚ
Ignore all the above if youâre happy with the SQ though. Itâs all just theoretical. But since you use FMCâs I assume the theoretical interests you a little bit (me too - just a little bit 
).
Itâs long since been discontinued because the production units didnât match the prototypes regarding performance.
Yes, that has already been mentioned and doesnât change the fact that PS Audio has no fiber converter product for Ethernet which is the ONLY important aspect of my post.
Its a shielded cat 7 (Supra) but I have removed the metal cover on the end I put into the transport, so its not grounded.
I wonder if I should swap inputs on the cable though, so I put the part with ground into the transport. The transport is grounded, so interference would have somewhere to go.
If youâre going to the trouble of electrically isolating the end point from the network and this requires devices with power supplies on either end then why not use wifi?
Iâd guess it depends on the Wifi implementation. Do most endpoints that have Wifi support come with built-in Wifi, or do they require some adapters?
I have a Bryston BDP-1 that didnât come with Wifi built-in, but has Wifi support now with USB Wifi dongle stick. I still prefer my ethernet for sound at #1, which is followed by direct USB playback from flash drives and hard drives at #2, and then USB wifi adapter. Iâve also used these devices with Jitterbug which also causes changes.
For me, all these USB devices differ in how they sound from each other and from ethernet. Ultimately, ethernet is the smoothest sounding, least bright, without any harshness on transients. It can actually sound dull sounding if coming from USB as a reference. The various USB devices make the sound more upfront and initially make it sound more detailed and airy, but in the long run gets tiring.
The BDP-1 outputs an AES signal to my DAC. On the other hand, I can also use the USB output from my iMac and Macbook Pros to my DAC. The sound is similar to how the BDP-1 sounds when I utilize USB, but even more heightened. The most upfront and bright sounding, with harshness and zing on transients. The Jitterbug definitely helps on that front. This is perhaps why I initially found the ethernet+Roon to sound a bit dull when coming from USB, because it never showed any strain or harshness. Now I cannot go back without feeling fatigued.
Iâm not sure on what the actual mechanism is and whatâs actually being affected inside the DAC, but there does seem to be a pattern with the direction in which the sound changes.
I think the Lumin rep here (@wklie) also has found problems with wireless and RFI impacting the sound.
I was thinking more along the lines of a wifi to ethernet adapter since the topic was initially about an ethernet connection tweak. I have used the IOGEAR GWU637 and the NetGear WNCE2001 connected to my SOtM SMS-200 and both work great. I powered them with an iFi iPower with the idea of reducing pollution of the AC mains power in comparison to the included smps.
I was also thinking that if this statement is true:
Then ethernet connection via fiber cable and ethernet connection via wifi could be of equal quality as both have the benefit of no electrical connection to a router or switch. The trade-off of these methods is the requirement of a powered converter at each end of the connection which is not designed specifically for audio and could have the negative side effect of degrading sound quality.
Lumin believes in the audio benefits of optical network to the point that itâs built-in to Lumin X1 with SFP. One will need an Ethernet switch with optical network port(s), and a pair of cheap SFP modules. No converter or extra power supply is necessary.
We do not recommend the use of WiFi in the audio path.
I want one of those, I already have the optical part solved. Now I just need to win the lottery 
Was the decision to include a fiber input based on customers asking for it or giving their own feedback with having some kind of fiber conversion, or you guys actually finding something empirical about what was wrong with copper ethernet?
IMHO, an alternative and better approach to network isolation (if doing this improves your system) is this:
http://www.emosystems.com/wp-content/uploads/Datasheet_EN-30-V20.pdf
These have been used in the medical industry for quite some time. According to their data sheet: âEMOSAFE EN-30 Network Isolators disconnect every electrically conducting connection (specifically the data and shield conductors) between devices connected together via a copper-based Ethernet network.â These donât introduce an additional power supply to the mix.
As always, YMMVâŚ
Perhaps, but its also a lot more expensive. And using fiber makes one thing sure: there is no electronic noise crossing over (as in, none, zip, nada). Even galvanic isolation donât guarantee that.
But my little tweak isnt the best of anything, its just a cheap way to improve sound. For example, I am sure the solution used by Lumin is a lot better.
Whats needed to make this tweak optimal is a very accurate ethernet stream re-generator in the last fiber converter, which I am sure the $40 devices I used is far from being.
Using tidal, going from copper 10M internet to a 1G(1000M) fibre internet, I got a big bump in performance/sq. This is because of both the fast speed Which has very little dropouts/retries of each packet, and the quiet that fibre gives you.
A significant number of people have already been doing optical network isolation with positive results. Having it integrated will be even better, because it will be direct (not go through another conversion) and powered by our power supply - not a cheap SMPS that comes with typical fiber media converters.
Hi,
Thanks for the reply. Yes, Iâve read numerous report of people experimenting with fibre. Some reported it didnât make a difference, others reported a difference (most saying positive, few saying negative). Iâm wondering if you guys objectively found with copper ethernet that the network system feeding the network player (Lumin or otherwise) could be measurably affected in itâs performance. What were the things that were problematic, or had the potential to be problematic, with copper ethernet? Itâd be nice to get some insight from people that actually have the ability to measure these things. 
As far as I have understood, fiber or copper in itself does not matter for transporting the actual data, but fiber removes all electronic noise coming from the source, which at least for me (with a noisy computer as source), makes a difference.