That is how I see it too.
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.)
156 responses Add your response
The opticalRendu is a streamer you attach to a USB DAC. Some DACs have build in streamers but most don’t. The Rendu takes music from Ethernet and sends it down the USB cable to the DAC. For the DAC to sound its best this USB signal needs to be free of noise and jitter. So I’m just not sure how "cleaner" ethernet packets going into a devices memory chips (cache) would improve the sound. We are not "cleaning" ethernet packets. There are digital and work the same if analog noise is present or not. We are remoting the analog noise from the Ethernet cable and keeping out of the analog stage of your DAC. |
I have a "competent" DAC - the Chord Qutest. I originally had it connected directly to my Roon Nucleus. When I added the optical gear, it dramatically improved the sound. The difference is not subtle. I can hear your rebuttal already: it's all in my head, it's confirmation bias, etc. Wrong. I've tried other pieces of gear expecting that they would improve the sound quality, and yet I heard no improvement and was disappointed. Other pieces of gear, I immediately heard an improvement. Two other people who posted above heard a clear improvement as well, one of which wrote a review about it: https://www.dagogo.com/audio-blast-sonore-systemoptique-signature-rendu-se/ By the way, anyone can try it out for themselves with no risk -- they offer a 30-day, no questions asked return policy. Then they'll know whose word they can trust. |
Folks, what about a simple pair of TP-Link converters, high-grade fiber optic runs (you can keep them short) and a top-notch Ethernet run on both ends? Feed them with clean power and you have a solution under $100 for each isolation point. I use the solution as a barrier between my home network and the noisebox fiber gateway provided by AT&T. System sounds pretty damn good. |
@agillis, to enjoy the benefits of fiber optic isolation, it looks like you need both an opticalModule and fiber ethernet converter. But in some of the other threads I've read about your product (Roon community), people suggest using two opticalModules. Can you explain which configuration is correct and why anyone would need two opticalModules? Thanks. |
SO complicated! Eth to optical to USB? Optical magically "cleans" the signal? One USB cable sounds much better than another? Running the signal through more boxes increases the SQ? Try a $50 Turtle Beach USB to optical convertor. Buy the cheapest optical cable. Laptop to optical. No analog until you get to the DAC. |
I have optical between an ER and SOtM switch. Then Ethernet between the SOtM and EE8 Switch which feeds an Innuos Server and also from the SOtM to an Antipodes Core running Roon Core. I use SOtM cables with filters and they have a very pleasing effect. I also use a Network Acoustics ENO filter between the EE8 and Innuos Server and it definitely has a positive noise reducing effect. Lots and lots of parts but net effect is very worthwhile. I am working on clocking the SOtM and ER in the near future with a Mutec Ref10. |
When I added the optical gear, it dramatically improved the sound. The difference is not subtle. I can hear your rebuttal already: it's all in my head, it's confirmation bias, etc. It's not in your head! Many of our customers have an experiences like this. Also many product reviewers. DACs have filters that can filter out noise from the USB bus or Ethernet input but they can't filter ALL the noise. If you reduce the noise coming into them you get better sound. Several people in this thread asked if you can just use cheap $50 fiber converters to "clean up" the sound on existing network players or a DAC with a built in network streamer. You can! And it does improve the sound. The problem is these have many noisy switching power regulators in them and it adds noise back into the ethernet cable on the "clean" end of the fiber. If you used a cheap ethernet to fiber converter or switch with an SFP on the "dirty" end of the fiber (network side) and an opticalModule on the "clean" (network player side) end you get very good results. Of coerce the best option is to do what the OP did and use a network streamer with a fiber Ethernet input (like the opticalRendu). That way you don't have to convert back to wired Ethernet before you go into the other player. |
volumizer: yeah, someone mentioned that already. I replied above. I have no association with SGC whatsoever. I’m just very happy with my purchase and they happened to be the first place I stumbled across the optical thing. Someone above said that SOtM has some good products that work similarly, so I would encourage people to check that out -- or any other company that has similar optical gear. |
@agillis, to enjoy the benefits of fiber optic isolation, it looks like you need both an opticalModule and fiber ethernet converter. But in some of the other threads I've read about your product (Roon community), people suggest using two opticalModules. Can you explain which configuration is correct and why anyone would need two opticalModules? Thanks. In my testing here using an opticalModule on both ends didn't make much of a difference. Using on the "clean" end of the fiber gave a noticeable improvement in sound. But the Roon community members are not the only ones who heard a difference with an opticalModule on the "dirty" end. Hans Beekhuyzen a youtube reviewer also says his opticalRendu sounds best with an opticalModule on the "dirty" end. You can watch his video here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0A0l6keKTg I have noticed that any time you eliminate switching power supplies from the area around your audio system the sound can improve. That may be what is happening here. |
gkr7007: Please let us know how it goes. som: It's good to hear that others can confirm what I'm hearing. What brand/model are your horn speakers? My speakers aren't horns, but they're very detailed/revealing nonetheless (Raidho D3.1, purchased secondhand), and they're thriving with the optical gear. I wonder though, before getting the optical in place, all I had in my digital chain was the Roon Nucleus, with my DAC directly connected to it. So maybe some of the improvement I got was just from adding a separate streamer (the opticalRendu), instead of having the Nucleus do all the work? It makes me think that people who don't already have a separate streamer might get a bigger boost from the opticalRendu than those who do. |
@hiphiphan Thanks for sharing this fiber info with us. This is the 3rd time this week I hear about SGC and the fiber optic devices you mention. I have a dCS Rossini DAC/Streamer, I use a copper Ethernet cable from my UniFi Switch to the Rossini. I don't use a computer, so no Roon or USB. Should I expect to hear the same benefits of reduced noise and EMI by using the fiber optic devices you mention? The SGC website is a bit confusing as to the equipment I would need. In looking at the SystemOptique tab, I believe I need an opticalRendu with a linear power supply for $1,399 and a Fiber Ethernet Converter Bundle for an additional $50. Is this correct? Thanks in advance. |
Regarding a couple of the questions above about the traditional "optical" ports on audio devices -- this was discussed a little bit earlier. As one poster put it: "Different optical we're talking here. The topic is on ethernet over fiber optic, not TOSLINK over fiber optic." Also, I questioned some audio manufacturers about this recently. Here's what they said (starting with Small Green Computer): Question I emailed to SGC: I was curious why other audio companies don't go the optical route, so I did a little reading and stumbled across some articles that said optical is more limited with regard to high-res signals/files. So, what is the highest resolution file the OpticalRendu can handle and faithfully pass on to the DAC? The highest res files on Qobuz are 24/192. Does that pose any problems for optical? Answer: Other companies are behind in technology. With 18 to 24 month design cycles it will be a few years before everybody else goes optical. You have to be VERY careful and read closely. The word "optical" in the old world refers to SPDIF optical. which is very limited. Optical Ethernet has no limits. We support every rate available on any DAC in the world. As of today that is 36/384 PCM and DSD512. Question I emailed to Baetis Audio (which makes customized music servers): I have another question about Baetis servers: can they come with a Toslink out, capable of transmitting high-resolution files (at least 192kHz/24, and preferably higher) to a DAC with a Toslink in? It seems to me that fiber optic cable would completely solve the problem of line noise (from "dirty" power, radio frequencies, etc.). Answer: Many of our systems do come with a TOSLINK out capability. However, these are not subjected to the clean signal that our daughterboard’s SPDIF and AES provide. While in theory an optical transmission of audio data is great, the implementation of the TOSLINK standard is not so great. Many DACs are limited to 96KHz via TOSLINK and 192 is the absolute maximum of the standard, I believe. In practice, our Coaxial SPDIF and AES is a MUCH better option. Question I emailed to Berkeley Audio (maker of a very highly respected, high-end DAC): Hello. Regarding your flagship DAC, does the TOSLINK port support 192kHz/24? And is it the best input for sound quality? Answer: In answer to your question; optical Toslink has limited bandwidth which results in slower data transitions which in turn increase effective jitter in the data receiver. With an excellent cable and source device Toslink can sometimes pass 192kHz but not reliably. 96kHz is a more realistic limit. We provide a Toslink input primarily to allow connection to devices such as AV receivers without coupling noise from them to the DAC through a ground connection. Balanced AES/EBU is the best format for sound quality. It is also preferred over coaxial SPDIF. The primary reason is that it has 8 to 10 times greater voltage swing than coaxial SPDIF which results in less effective jitter in the DAC’s data receiver output. If possible, use a 1.5 meter long AES/EBU cable. We recommend a 1.5 meter length because it is short enough to have low capacitance providing fast data transitions and long enough to reduce the negative effect on data receivers of reflected energy caused by return loss in real world transmission lines that use connectors with impedance discontinuities. |
Hiphiphan: "I don’t know anything about anything, but it made theoretical sense to me, it wasn’t a huge amount of money ($1,400)" Wow... This literal quote from the OP says it all for me. Read it again and really think about it. Let's break it down. Part 1: OK, so why should I listen to you at all? Part 2: If you don't know anything, how are you qualified to say that it makes theoretical sense? Part 3: $1400 not a huge amount for a cable? REALLY!! What planet are you from? Trust fund babyland? I'm not poor, but I work every day for my money. I'm not usually a hater, but something smells fishy about this one. I am however, an engineer, and it seems like any decent DAC with a reclocking system of some sort would negate this cable. I will agree that this system 'could' improve the sound of an inexpensive streamer/DAC combo. But $1400 is not cheap. |
cycles2: I agree, the SGC website is confusing. I must have visited that thing 100 times before I kind of figured out what was what. But regarding your question: I don't know this for sure, but it sounds like your set-up is already so optimized for reducing noise (no computer/USB out, hi-fi switch, dCS Rossini DAC/Streamer), that I don't know how much of an improvement you'd get from the opticalRendu. Maybe someone else can chime in about this? But regarding what all you would need to try it out: I think you're on the right track. Maybe Andrew can confirm this, but I think you would plug the little optical converter box (which is part of the Fiber Ethernet Converter Bundle) into your switch, then you would plug one end of the optical cable into this converter box and the other into the optical port on the opticalRendu, then connect the Rendu to the Rossini via USB. By the way, a respectable reviewer on YouTube (Hans Beekhuyzen) in his review of the opticalRendu seemed to say that you might get better results if you used the Optical Module instead of the cheap little media converter box. But I can't vouch for that since I haven't tried it for myself (at least not yet). |
| Post removed |
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. |
$1,400 seems like a lot of money. I am old-school DIN 45500 educated person with 50+ yrs of audio experience and I have a nice arsenal of inexpensive/expensive gear. Money should be spent on loudspeakers, turntables, DAC's. And NOT on cables, power outlet conditioners and all the other (often snakeoily) gadgets, that might make 0.1% sq improvement. How does one measure the sq improvement/expense ratio anyways? If a $1,400 digital interface makes such a dramatic difference, then my first question would be, what else is wrong in this particular setup? "Wrong" might be too strong a word here, perhaps "mis-aligned" would be more polite. Going back to the original post, my second question is: What problems are you trying to solve with this $1,400 expense? Cheers and happy listening. |
I shouldn't even reply to someone so rude. But for the sake of other readers . . . Part 1: OK, so why should I listen to you at all? [You don't have to. This is a hobbyist forum. I'm just sharing my experiences with fellow enthusiasts. I'm free to do that. And you're free not to listen to me.] Part 2: If you don't know anything, how are you qualified to say that it makes theoretical sense? [It made theoretical sense TO ME, because the audiophile community is always trying to find ways to reduce electrical noise. Fiber optic is glass (or plastic), not metal, so it's incapable of picking up or transmitting electrical noise the way a metal cable is.] Part 3: $1400 not a huge amount for a cable? REALLY!! What planet are you from? Trust fund babyland? I'm not poor, but I work every day for my money. [It's not just a cable. It's two cables, a media converter box, an optical streamer, and a high quality linear supply unit. Of course, whether $1400 is a huge amount of money is relative. I'm nowhere close to wealthy, but to me, it's not a "huge" amount of money for what you get, and for the boost in sound quality depending on your set-up.] |
I’ve been using fiber optic between network switch and DAC for almost two years. For me, it’s such an improvement over straight Ethernet, I’ll never go back. Galvanic isolation/ separation is probably the key here. As with most things hifi, doing a lot of little things right leads to noticeable improvements. I put time, effort, thought and money into every component in my network system. It all matters when it comes to digital streaming, just like it matters when it comes to having a great phono/ turn table setup. |
niodari, my experience is that Toslink is poorer as a link in comparison to digital coax. There may be exceptions, but I have not encountered any yet. The discussion on upgrade here is conversion from ethernet to optical. I would not make the mistake of thinking that because the Toslink is inferior to your DAC, it would not be efficacious to use optical connection in eliminating noise/improving the playback by replacing Ethernet. I wrote the article the OP is referencing in regard to the SMC/SONORE products, and discourage people from the conclusion that these two implementations of fiber optic result in similar outcomes. I also encourage people to listen to those who have done demo, owned and/or compared. |
In addition to my dCS DAC/Streamer I have a NAS for ripped music. Like the dCS Rossini DAC, the NAS is connected to a UniFi switch via a 6' Melco Ethernet cable. My question is would I need an additional fiber optic setup between the NAS and UniFi switch or would the fiber optic setup between the UniFi switch and the dCS Rossini take care of any electrical noise interference when listening to ripped music from the NAS? |
It is my understanding optical/fiber decoupling is best positioned as close to the endpoint as possible. I am currently using two
TP-Link Gigabit SFP to RJ45 Fiber Media Converters and a 1M run of Multimode Duplex Fiber Optic Cable. These are positioned after a
Silent Angel Bonn N8 Ethernet network switch and just in front of my Antipodes server to eliminate EMI/RFI that may potentially be contaminating the approximately 30 feet run of Ethernet from my router to my server.
One question I have considered is whether I would be better off placing one of my TP Link fibre/Ethernet converters at my router, and then the second just in front of my server so I could run 30 feet of duplex fiber optic cable in place of the current Ethernet cable? BTW, 10M of fiber optic cable only costs about $12. Another question I have is why does it cost thousands of dollars to implement these options (i.e., the Sonore products)? TP-Link Gigabit SFP to RJ45 Fiber Media Converters cost about $20 bucks, the fiber duplex cables are inexpensive, and you can purchase a 1 foot Cat 8 cable for $6 bucks that you can use to make final connections to your router, switch, server, and/or endpoint. I get that having that optical connection inside the device may be a slightly superior solution, but is the trade-off of not needing a 1 to 3-foot Ethernet cable at the end of your signal chain really worth thousands? For $12, I think I will try running fiber optic cable instead of Ethernet for my longest connection. |
I agree totally with hiphiphan I use a silent angel Z1 as server an an optical sonore rendu as player (optical fibers connected on an unify audiophile switch)with a border patrol DAC through roon and audivarna I think really the optic fibers give a big improvement in clarity, space, air and relax sound It is just addictive It becomes very difficult for me to stop a listening session bertrand |
cycles2: To be honest, we’re talking about what is essentially a $1,400 streamer compared to your $23,000 streamer/DAC. You are waaaaay beyond where I was with my digital front-end. Common sense is telling me that the opticalRendu is just not going to be worth your while. I have to think that a very high-end, very highly lauded audio company like dCS Rossini has designed their streamer to fix the noise issues that the optical set-up addresses. And of course, their streaming/clocking functions are going to be far above the Rendu’s. I think the Rendu optical kit is mainly going to benefit people who don’t already have a high-end streamer. In his review of the opticalRendu, Hans Beekhuyzen says that even though it’s good, it doesn’t match the sound quality of his $4,000 Auralic streamer. (Although he does say it comes close, and that it offers much bigger bang for the buck than the Auralic.) Regarding the Lumin streamer, that’s really interesting. I noticed that Auralic’s new $9,000 external master clock uses optical isolation to separate certain sections of that device. I’m confident that a couple of years from now, optical is going to be ubiquitous. It seems to very effectively, simply, and cheaply solve the issue of electrical noise. |
Your DAC likely is not able to deal with the higher jitter of an optical interface. Coax has less jitter.audio2 and douglas, do you mean the optical converter or the optical cable? In both cases, a similar problem may occur in Ethernet to optical conversion. Unlikely the problem is in the DAC (T&A DAC 8) which, in general, delivers a clean and natural reproduction. In general, one straightforwardly assumes that the more direct signal is, the better is the sound (less converters, better ...). My internet signal comes with a fiber optic cable, are there strong arguments supporting a common opinion that WiFi connection to a streamer would a priory be worse than the cable connection? |
| Post removed |
