If you stream music from the internet, I can't recommend this more highly


I had been using a Roon Nucleus to stream Qobuz, with my Chord Qutest directly connected to the Nucleus. I thought I was getting pretty decent sound quality. And then I got a marketing email from Small Green Computer touting some of their optical gear. The basic idea is that normal cables and connections used to stream from the internet pick up noise of one kind or another (radio frequencies and electromagnetic something or other). But fiber optic cables and their connections/interfaces do not. I don’t know anything about anything, but it made theoretical sense to me, it wasn’t a huge amount of money ($1,400), and with a 30 day return policy I figured I could always return it if I didn’t hear any improvement. Well, I didn’t just hear a slight improvement; it was like turning on the lights in a dark room. Much greater clarity and detail, much better micro and macro dynamics, better timbre to acoustic instruments -- overall just more lifelike. Two quick examples: I’ve listened to some of Steely Dan’s top songs 100s of times over the course of my life, and this is the first time I’d ever noticed a particular and very subtle sound characteristic of Fagen’s keyboard in Babylon Sister. It’s hard to describe, but it’s like there’s a slight sound of air being exhaled by it. The other example: the specific timbre of whatever percussive instrument is used at the beginning of Copeland’s "Fanfare for the Common Man" (a recording by the Minnesota Orchestra). There’s more of a metallic sound than a drum skin sound to it that I didn’t know was there before. The metallic sound starts in the center and then projects out and to the sides, like a wave washing over you. Anyway, I’m just thrilled about having stumbled upon the whole "optical" thing and felt obligated to let others know about it. If you stream music over the internet, I highly recommend giving it a try. (The product I got was the opticalRendu, with the linear power supply option, and the Fiber Ethernet Converter Bundle option.)
128x128hiphiphan

Showing 12 responses by audio2design

Great example of a person who is not smart when it comes to technology so they open up their wallet willy nilly and believe anything they are told.

There is almost 0 data loss in wired home networks. Even when there is, those data failures are corrected.  The only issues come does to EMI, whether through the Ether cable, which is possible as Ethernet transformer can pass somewhat low frequencies, or possibly through closely connected power supplies.
@p05129,

Was the repeated plugs for a store/business your first clue? :-).  This has been around for quite some time with tons of discussions.
If you want to understand a TON of information about digital streaming that few people understand, check out The Hans Beekhuyzen channel on YouTube.
Here's a link to the MicroRendu review. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XRi9utNBl4



Yes, the 70's era scope in the background must mean he knows what he is talking about. That is why he is hyping superlatives on a product that ASR showed, with the stock power supply, was an absolute disaster.

Except that ethernet carries no audio clock information, and proper layout will easily eliminate modulation of the digital power supply /ground from entering the analog section.
If you're sending data via packets there is no need for reclocking with any somewhat confidently designed DAC. The dock generates its own local clock it gains no clocking information from the data connection.  Much of the claims for the so-called Network reclockers assumes that the person who did the dac is totally incompetent.   The claims that they make would be instantly evident and easily tested with a distortion plus noise across frequency plot.  If they can't provide you clear evidence of that sort then that's all they have is claims they don't have any evidence their product does anything.
Your DAC likely is not able to deal with the higher jitter of an optical interface. Coax has less jitter.
Optical as in Toslink where the DAC is extracting timing information from the signal (poorly).  Optical ethernet does not have this issue.
In a home environment, with cheap cables, data losses and retransmits are near zero.  Most people at least admit this. If there is a difference it can only be attributed to EMI/noise.  Ethernet transformers will pass frequencies <1MHz.
By empirical you mean anecdotal.  It would be best to learn the difference.
What part of "empirical" evidence, from a scientific standpoint, requires controlled listening tests, not ad-hoc listening tests hence anecdotal evidence is hard for the kids in the back to understand??
Copied this from a website, but ...

Breaking Down the Evidence

The main concern with empirical research is the collection of unbiased evidence. Researchers must carefully design the research while minimizing exposure to potential errors. In the scientific world, it is common that several scientists or researchers gather evidence simultaneously through the replication of the same study. In addition, a peer review is a primary tool in science that is used to validate the evidence provided in a study or research.



https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/empirical-evidence/


Stolen from Wikipedia.


These methods yield only probabilities. Among scientific researchers, empirical evidence (as distinct from empirical research) refers to objective evidence that appears the same regardless of the observer. For example, a thermometer will not display different temperatures for each individual who observes it. Temperature, as measured by an accurate, well calibrated thermometer, is empirical evidence. By contrast, non-empirical evidence is subjective, depending on the observer. Following the previous example, observer A might truthfully report that a room is warm, while observer B might truthfully report that the same room is cool, though both observe the same reading on the thermometer. The use of empirical evidence negates this effect of personal (i.e., subjective) experience or time.


What this means is the answer to "do you like A better than B" could be considered non-empirical evidence. Being able to tell A and B apart would be empirical evidence. However, if B was a modified version of A, then it could be empirical depending on how the question was worded.  I do feel this paragraph is a bit strict in its definition.



From bennpar.com



Anecdotal evidence is using your personal experiences and stories to illustrate your point. Empirical evidence is measured, unbiased, and replicable.



Without a designed experiment that removes bias, a listening test is nothing more than a personal experience and hence meet this test for anecdotal.



From study.com


Today's topic, anecdotal evidence, can be defined as testimony that something is true, false, related, or unrelated based on isolated examples of someone's personal experience. Anecdotal evidence is very popular in the advertising world. Every time you see a claim about a product's effectiveness based on a person's personal experience, the company is using anecdotal evidence to encourage sales. 


Again, like almost every single uncontrolled listening test reported on Audiogon.


From yourdictionary.com


Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis.


Again, like almost every reported listening test here.


Oxford English Dictionary:


(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

‘while there was much anecdotal evidence there was little hard fact’



So yes, I am quite confident in classifying almost all the reported listening experiences on this site as anecdotal.

Amir may have bias, but the data does not lie. People like to convince themselves of their personal hearing superiority, so they will ignore the data, but that does not make it untrue. This isn't the 70's where all we look at it is a single frequency THD value.