Hi Torben while I use a lot of Fiber for work (as I need multi drops and long distances and often going through heavy electrical noise areas) I do not actually run any at home, though sometimes tempted by doing this.
I will say that am neutral to the idea that Fiber isolation will automatically improve SQ in all situations, but very happy for those that see an improvement in SQ.
To my mind the diagram looks absolutely fine, and I have seen variants where people have put basic TP Link media converters in (but probably loses the Sonore clean power supply).
I would say give it a go and if your ears like it then keep it, if you hear no difference then just weigh up the cost benefit and maybe still keep it. By going down the basic media convertor route you can test this for under €200 all in, but maybe you do no then hear the improvements
I have gone through this for many years already
And it’s great that you got the Meraki (which is really good!) which also has onboard fibre optics.
You will definitely hear an improvement with both setups. If you got the budget than I’d recommend going for setup1 which is more expensive though what the Sonore OpticalModule Deluxe 2 will do is really amazing. You also get great advice from https://www.metawave.org
I posted about using fiber isolation several months ago. Responses were mainly that it is a waste of time and money. Yet, to my ears it does improve sound quality. It is not too expensive to try unless you get the System Optique gear from Sonore. I just used a $75 pair of fiber transceivers from Amazon along with inexpensive fiber cable.
3 Likes
Bill_Janssen
(Wigwam wool socks now on asymmetrical isolation feet!)
5
I long ago fell for the notion that you can’t really “improve” anything unless you can measure it. Once you can do that, you have a way of finding out what might affect it, and whether that effect is positive or negative. So I figure anyone who’s attempting to improve SQ should start by finding out how to measure it. You might look at the Dewe gear, for instance.
Fibre is designed for 2 things - high bandwidth and long distance.
Yes, it provides galvanic isolation, but then copper ethernet also provides galvanic isolation of implemented correctly.
I have both fibre and Cat6 ethernet deployed in my network - fibre for bandwidth between the server and the main switch and between the main and secondary switches. Everything else is copper.
I can switch between fibre (20Gbit) and copper (1Gbit) between the server (Roon Core runs on it too) and the main switch and I’ve never heard any difference between them.
If you really want to dabble in fibre - there’s no technical reason why it would offer any sonic improvement, then go with the budget option. The first option is wildly overpriced for what it is and it utilises now legacy OM1 fibre.
Edit: Others will disagree and claim sonic improvements, however their claims are almost without exception based on sighted listening and not blind A/B/X listening. I won’t say any more on the subject as we’ve had too many circular network discussions in the past.
Let me first say that i have an optical solution in my house for my audio setup but for way less then what i see here.
On one side of the room i have my NAS, Intel NUC with Rooncore and a 24 inch touchscreen. Attached to the router i have a simple netgear switch containing the NAS and NUC. Going out of the switch goes a standard network cable to a normal priced optical converter. Because of the optical technique alllll noise up to this point will not go forward, therefore expensive switches and a converter at this end is all BS. Then a optical cable goes to the other side of the room where the audio setup resides. The second converter (optical to network cable) has a better IFI power adapter. And then it continues to my DAC> Accuphase > KEF Reference speakers. All audio equipment on this side of the room is connected to one power source.
Snake oil? No it really gives an improved sound. Is it worth the money you describe, i would say no. My solution costs around 200 euro and for me this works perfect. If you would like to improve this in the future, only the second converter is to be replaced / improved if you want Again everything before the optical conversion will not pass the optical cable so any upgrade there is BS. My next step will be a higher quality power bank and a specific power point in my power cabinet specific for the audio equipment. An endless hobby? Yess!
Like other posters already have stated, getting transceivers/converters and fiber cable from Amazon will be a lower cost option and will work well for you to try out. Whether it makes a difference is the question.
In my opinion, the Sonore route is way too much money. I have a Sonore ultrarendu I bought used as my endpoint so do like their products but can’t justify their fiber setup/cost.
I was lucky in my fiber setup test. I have two switches that had an open SFP port. I got two SFP Multimode transceivers ($19 ea) and an 8m length of OM2 fiber ($21). Plugged in the transceivers to each switch, plugged in the fiber to them, powered up the switches and then plugged a short length of cat6 to the ultrarendu.
Does it sound better? I think so, but would not want to take a blind test.
Total cost was $60 for the experiment.
Guys, I just want to remind you all, you’re taking about transporting DATA, it’s not audio. Post DAC we can have some discussion about SQ, but not before
I guess you misunderstood. When i am talking about this optical solution i am also not talking about the data itself, that does not change as you mention. The problem lies in the design of the network cable itself. It has metal to metal connections which can cause noise / interference to be transported across the cable. And that unwanted noise can travel through your equipment up to the point where the digital sounds turns to analog sound and then is being added to the analog sound.
Bill_Janssen
(Wigwam wool socks now on asymmetrical isolation feet!)
19
It’s only a solution if there was a problem in the first place.
This obsession with “noise” is interesting. I mean, there’s always noise. It’s everywhere; it’s a corollary of the second law of thermodynamics. No matter what you do, there will always be noise.
It’s a digital DATA, but it is streamed through the LAN by an analog electric current.
The DATA is channeled through JR45 cables that react to RFI like antennas.
And all the devices of the LAN who are not powered by a LPS spread high frequencies of electrical noise all over the LAN (modem, router, computers, switches…).
All these interferences reach the endpoint with the DATA, and degrade the SQ.
An optical isolation right before the endpoint eliminates them all. The analog electrical current of the DATA is converted to light, while the interferences and noise are filtered because they don’t contain DATA.
I use $40 conerters from Amazon, and they clearly improve the sound.
It’s important to power the second converter, the one before the endpoint, with a LPS to avoid it from spreading electrical noise in the clean zone that was created.
This is a claim that has oft been repeated, but do you have any objective evidence that this is the case, i.e. that a) noise does transfer from the digital domain to the analogue, and b) that it creates an audible difference?
Given what we know about psychoacoustics, and the limitations of auditory memory, I’m not convinced that hearing a difference means that there is one, but each to his own.
