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

ATMFRANK, do you find a notable additional difference with and without Allo Digione Signature/Raspberry (do you need any special things to install it, it seems it comes without a case right), what DAC you have? 

To me as well, folks, the thoughts of ATMFRANK are logical and convincing, I would rather trust such reasoning. 

This hobby cracks me up sometimes.  I have to agree with ATMFrank.  Please try to balance your subjective opinions with technology.  Anyone that thinks a 3 foot, $1,000 AQ Diamond ethernet cable improves the sound quality of your digital over a well designed and built 3 foot, $16.95  BJC ethernet cable (which ships with test results of said cable) is spending an unneeded ~$980.00.

But hey....whatever blows your hair back.

At the risk being perceived at being rude again...electronic interference can only affect audio quality at the endpoint where Ethernet packets being converted (decoded) back to the original bit structure of where they entered the transport medium (encoded). Any electrical interference along the transport wires has be inaudible simply because Ethernet/optical packets cannot be listening to. At the interface level there complete galvanic isolation between Ethernet/optical and original bitstream. Jitter/EMI on Ethernet/optical wires is irrelevant and has 0% effect on sq.

Now, some manufactures designing "high-end" audio streamers for tons of $$$ really only have to worry about of interference from those interfaces, the converting technology, the size of packet buffers and clock signals. That’s what you pay for ($1,400) for Rendu devices.

The real question to me remains: What problems are we trying to solve? If you replace all Ethernet/optical wires from the system and replace them with wifi, that would be a worthwhile discussion. Please read the few available reviews (e.g. Auralic Aries G1), which offers both technologies and try to ascertain which medium has a bigger impact on sq. The result: zero audible difference.

As to main question, is $1,400 is lot of money to improve the sq of a system? I can only reply, my Allo Digione Signature/Raspberry cost about $300. This is a transport only, feeding an external DAC over SPDIF/coax. But it has complete galvanic isolation between the "noisy" wifi interface of the Berry and SPDIF transport, plus high-quality re-clocking of the bitstream before it enters into the SPDIF interface. Yes, there still is a small chance of the Wifi interface causing some residual EMI on the SPDIF circuitry. Is it measurable, will it make a difference? I don’t know.

Challenge for anyone out there to put a $300 network bridge to test against a mega$$$ network streamer/DAC/Rendu with mega$$$ cable and audiograde switches in-between.

I am a audiophile hobbyist just like most people here. All I am saying, please try and blend your listening experiences with the truth of technical explanations. Alternately, you are free to purchase things like the $10,000 Audioquest "directionally aligned" Ethernet cable and expect a "dramatic" improvement of the wired audio components. Snakeoil.

...And even with an optical converter, you have to convert the signal back at to ethernet so you can plug it into your streamer, at least with 99% of streaming devices, so the signal is liable to pick up electronic interference at this point and it doesnt take much to have negative impact on the highly sensitive electronics of the streamer.

Sure but the "cleaned" signal again enters to DAC, cannot it again poorly extract the sampling info? 

Optical as in Toslink where the DAC is extracting timing information from the signal (poorly).  Optical ethernet does not have this issue.

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? 

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.

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

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.

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's interesting that Lumin may be onto something with their X1 DAC/Streamer as it has a native fiber connection in addition to the copper Ethernet (RJ45) connection. I've heard and read from X1 owners that the fiber optic port is noticeably better than the copper Ethernet port.

@hiphiphan  Thanks for Andrew's email.

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.

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. 

Your DAC likely is not able to deal with the higher jitter of an optical interface. Coax has less jitter.

I didn't read all the posts, have a simple question. I use wifi with Node2 and have tried both, coax and optical connection to my DAC. According to all this, optical should sound cleaner  (as a fiber filter), however coax cable sounds better. A contradiction or I am missing something? 

As I say personally I don’t trust streaming, that’s why I don’t go this direction too deep. Just saying 🙂my opinion. Try coax instead optical 

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.]

$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. 

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.

pophaudio:  Ansuz power distributor; Roon Nucleus; Chord Qutest; T+A integrated amp; secondhand Raidho D3.1s.  (And now, of course, the optical kit.)

krell_fan1:  Thanks!

cycles2:  andrew@smallgreencomputer.com

Hi , didn’t read all trough, but  no one asked what is your entire system?
by the way I don’t like stream so much, I like to get up and flip record and look harder  for music I like . my personal thing 🙂 just saying 

@hiphiphan  Thanks for your prompt reply.  What's the best way to contact Andrew at SGC.  I didn't see an email or phone #.

Congratulations, and welcome to the club! I too reasoned it all out and concluded it all made sense to me. I’ve owned the Sonore Signature Optical Rendu for about 6 months now and couldn’t be happier. I too am blown away by the SQ. 

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).

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.  

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  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.

Aren't optical cable connections usually restricted to 96kHz?

Kind of new to the streaming thing.  How might this be different from/superior to using the optical input from a Sonos Connect to your system? Just the quality of the hardware or is there more?

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. 

Thanks for the post. Something to consider!

Count me in as another happy OpticalRendu owner. I’m using a pair of very high efficient horns which magnify every bit of noise in the system. Using optical ethernet definitely brought a level of blackness to the background that I didn’t have before

@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.

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.

Just went with SMG i5 and opticalrendu package.  Andrew is easy to work with and very responsive to inquiries.  I'm simply waiting on the opticalrendu package to arrive so I can fire this whole thing up.

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.

Dang. I always get that wrong. 

Thanks for that tip !   Only one thing, my all time favorite American composer ?  No 'E' in his last name (O:

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.

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.

This looks like an add disguised as a posting.

@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. 

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.

My test process was the one that matters most in this hobby:  actually listening.  You on the other hand haven't even done that, and yet you're going to make a judgment based on some universal (and btw, untested) theoretical assumption about all "competent" DACs.