Network Acoustics Eno Streaming System vs SGC Optical Isolation System

@sns - nice post and my recent efforts lead me to agree wholeheartedly.

I have a bunch of stuff here, like the eno system, Gigafoilv4, fiber and converters, switches, LPSs, and more.  Starting over and moving things around in configurations that don't necessarily make logical sense, was ear-opening.  I was amazed at being able to hear differences in almost every configuration based on three consistent music selections and quick A/B comparisons.  I ended up with a sound that works well for my ears, and got there with less stuff in the chain.   Most surprisingly was the improvement I heard from having the end of the line stuff (switch and eno) positioned very close to the streamer/server input rather than a couple of shelves away.  My take-away is ya just never know, so try everything and listen for the sound you want to hear. 

@sns

Thanks for your post. This is ‘network optimization ONE-oh-ONE’ for anyone looking to extract most out of their digital streaming.

@sns well said. 

@sns 

I appreciate your insightful perspective. Certainly food for thought.

Charles

More thoughts in regard to complexity of streaming systems. Streaming is likely the most inherently complex source we have, even vinyl pales somewhat in comparison. We necessarily have to deal with networks, this means ISP, modems, routers, cabling, perhaps switches. Then we need means to deliver music, this requires music player software and server to utilize that software. Next is means of delivering this information to dac which is the rendering function. Finally we have dac to deliver these bits to our system.

So we have this inherent complexity to which we can add all manner of optimizations to each of these functions. Cabling, filtering, lps, power cords, power conditioning, ethernet vs optical, choice of OS, motherboards, music player software, RAM, NAS, local drives, etc. ad nauseam. I could go on and on, suffice to say one can really go into weeds, check out whatsbestforum, audiophilestyle forums to get an idea of how far some have gone. My own experience has been that optimization of every link in chain can pay off in improved sound quality. The key is discovering how to implement these optimizations, some of my changes have been retrograde, most have been incrementally positive. As for the incrementally positive, one must always ask themselves could I do better? In some cases I have improved things by further optimizing what I already thought fully optimized.

This optimization of the already optimized is where I find myself at this point in my streaming experiments. In exploration of more network optimizations, I changed out my ISP plan from 300mbps to 500, real world performance went from 330mbps download, 11.5 upload to 548 dowload, 21.5 upload. As part of this upgrade modem was necessarily changed from Netgear CM500 to Technicolor 1GB capable modem. Both run off same 12V LPS into BPT 3.5 Signature modified power conditioner, both utilize Broadcom chipset vs inferior Intel Puma, Technicolor runs DOCSIS 3.1 vs 3.0.  Changing service and modem has resulted in further lowering of noise floor, something I would not have believed possible to further improve prior. While incremental, this has been meaningful improvement, well worth the extra $20 per month charge vs prior service.

So in regard to streaming complexity, optimization and further optimization of each and every function in streaming system, its been proven once again how every single little thing can affect the entire system. For those willing to go down path of extracting max potential from their streaming source I recommend paying great attention to ISP quality, modem and routers. Research latency/jitter and noise propagation of these devices, not all created equal. Use lps, power conditioning with these devices as well. Further possible improvements may be possible with higher quality lps and power cords to modem, already have done this with router.

For those skeptical about modem and router optimization, I can only suggest one experiment here, assuming one's system has necessary resolving/transparency, improvements should be easily heard. Based on idea all links in chain important, first links need to be optimized in order to hear optimizations further down chain. Perhaps some of these filters we use would become unnecessary with more fundamental optimizations?

The Waversa Roon Core looks interesting as well.  But I use a usb attached Raid Hard Drive for my music storage vs network attached so this would not be compatible?  I would like to consider upgrading my Roon Core.  But I  think I need only a core, not a Core and Streamer and I want to keep Roon.

@lalitk 

Thank you very much for the additional information.

Charles

@charles1dad

Sorry for late reply. As per Rich at Network Acoustics, Muon Pro is designed for the professional ’studio’ market and streamers that require Gigabit Ethernet. The Muon Pro works at 1Gb/s so no issues with devices that demand Gigabit Ethernet connectivity. Back to your query, if your streamer doesn’t require Gigabit Ethernet, you’re unlikely to hear any differences between Muon Pro and standard version. Speaking from my experience, I would go for Pro version thus allowing future compatibility with any devices that may require Gigabit Ethernet.

Also when you are shopping LAN Cable, please ensure they support 1Gbit/100Mbit/10Mbit connection speed (minimum CAT 6A specification).

I have always wondered about so many filters, switches in the streaming setup.  Diminishing returns?  With that being said I  have DX Engineering filters and an Add Powr symphony I O.  I think each item does different things.  The results are space around the voices and instrument, very good detail.  Excellent soundstage.  Adding finishing touches to a streaming setup really takes the music to OK I'm satisfied now phase!!

Adding fiber to my Ethernet connection produced the biggest impact of any tweek I’ve done to my system. Combine that with a linear power supply, and a wireworld starlight platinum Ethernet cable and it’s even gone to the next level. Btw, I’m using a node with a pd creative power supply upgrade. This has all been so inexpensive to do it’s been fun! Best tweek I’ve ever done. 

good thread guys.

I'm an Etherregen user and I feed it with optical from a Cisco 2960. Adding in the optical was very noticeable.

I have a cheap Chinese 10mhz clock on the ER. That does make an audible difference. 

I too am drawn to the simplicity of passive network acoustic filters. I might be up for trying the pro this year.

I have very good power supplies (Ferrum Hypsos on the ER and a long dog audio LPS on the clock.

Hello @lalitk and all,  As you know I also have the M12 Gold switch, and agree it is amazing, especially with the JCAT power supply.  I also have the Muon Filter System x 2. (Two systems)  I had them prior to the M12, and simply kept them inline after my switch which serves both of my systems.  Tonight, I decide to evaluate my Makua with onboard Tambaqui system to see if the Muon still makes a difference with the M12.  My wife and I Listened to Liberty about 6 times, with and without the Muon.

The answer was clear to us; the Muon still makes a noticeable improvement, even with the M12 Gold.  And we each independently heard this.  With the Muon, sound was richer, smoother, bigger, more air and space and just plain easier feeling. She described it as warmer feeling.

Now I too am anxious to hear the pro.  Some lucky person will be acquiring my Muon!  BTW, I do not feel the ER is still needed.

@lalitk 

The MUON filter system  has received really excellent reviews and owner feedback. I wonder how the “Pro” version is presumably better in a home audio system environment. IOW what’s to be gained in a practical day to day sense?

Charles

@lalitk thanks for the info on the Muon Pro! Very interesting. I’ll add that to my list!

@jerryg123 

Well, I doubt many would wanna try Waversa products or deal with Kevalin Audio. 

“Kevalin Audio website has a 30 (thirty) day home trial period, with the option to return for refund less a 20% restocking fee.”

I know, I am out! 

@lalitk the problem is I want to try them all!

@jerryg123 

Keep them coming! 

So, let's throw another candidate into the mix in regard to filtering. 

Found this at WBF...I need to stop this! 

I still own my PRO DAC also and have been comparing.  It took a while for the sound of the X to stabilize and maybe for my ears to become accustomed to it.  I still like the PRO but they are sort of two different things.   I have owned the v3, B4B21+, PRO and now the X.  As I told Benjamin, with the other three there was a direct progression in that each was an advancement/improvement on the other within the same sonic footprint.  However, the X is something different because of the amount of detail and the increased dynamics.  The v3, B4B, and PRO are all comfortable down-home cooking while the X is a fusion meal in an upscale big city restaurant.  Both are very good and while they certainly sound related (both have that organic tonal density) the X pushes the envelope on detail and dynamics to a level the others do not.  I am not selling the PRO just yet but I did end up moving the X to the dedicated shelf in my main system while for now the PRO is in a box.

@mitch2 Thank you!! Off topic: did you switch from your EVO DAC to the Mystique X? Is there a noticeable improvement? I have the Pro. 

@hchilcoat - My streamer is exactly the same Mojo DejaVu that you have described.  None of this stuff has resulted in a monumental improvement or change for me, so far.  I do have preferences but none of it has been a deal-breaker one way or the other.

@lalitk Thanks. I have the Eno now but contemplating the Muon. My streamer is a Mojo Audio Deja Vu with JCAT XE USB and ethernet. Wondering how much additional performance I'd get by adding the Muon.

@hchilcoat 

As per Rich, The Pro version is not on their website yet but being officially released later this month. 

Is the Muon Pro available? I don't see it on the NA website.

@mitch2

You raised questions worth pondering. If you recall our previous conversations, I always advocated for less is more. Having said that, each system is unique and then there are user preferences. I honestly believe adding or mixing more than one of these noise canceling devices doesn’t always yield to improvements that are monumental or worth pursuing at the added expense of complexities or chaos.

In regards to effectiveness of devices like MI-300 and iSO-CAT7, I think their existence in your system is going to largely dependent on your components downstream. I have tried a reputable net isolator similar to MI-300 in the past and couldn’t justify its existence in my system. I will soon be trying the iSO-CAT7 filter with upcoming trial of fully tricked out SOtM switch. I haven’t felt the need (until very recently) to mess with my network since purchasing M12 switch, 18 months ago. A simple switch that checks all the boxes between my router and Streamer/DAC.

And lastly, a recent communication with Rich at Networks Acoustics confirms, Muon Pro operating at 1Gb/s sounds better than the standard 100Mb/s version.

What are the similarities/differences between what those passive filters are doing vs. what the Network Acoustics passive filters are doing? Are they all basically the same sonically, or are there actual sonic differences rather than simply marketing differences?

Yep! Always the question with audio products. Sorting out the facts versus persuasive hype and hyperbole.

Charles

@lalitk 

It will be interesting to hear your feedback once you remove everything in the path and go direct from your modem or router to your Innuos. I know this is A/B is bit of pain but this is the only way to re-evaluate what each of the devices in the signal path doing to enhance your listening.

You are right about it being a pain, but realistically the only choice to have even a chance of determining what each of these things are doing.  My problem is having too many things here.  I just received a Denafrips Hermes DDC that I wanted to use to convert USB out of my streamer/server (which is Mojo Audio's DejaVu and not Innuous, btw) to AES/EBU that will then input into my Mojo Audio Mystic X SE DAC (which is not yet shown on my system page).  Unfortunately, there are some setup issues with the Hermes that I am working through with Vinshine currently so I have not yet heard what it can do.

The simplest path into the server may be my CAT8 Ethernet cable directly from the router into my Bonn switch and then the eno system cable/filter from the switch to my streamer/server.  In addition to that stuff, I also have fiber and converters  (currently installed), as well as the Gigafoilv4 (not installed),  and could use either to provide optical isolation.  The reports by @wjob and others in this thread of glare/hardness related to optical isolation using convertors have me wondering whether the pairing of both optical isolation and the Network Acoustics stuff is causing an issue when used together, or whether the issue is the byproduct of SMPS power supplies on convertors, or some other implementation issue as suggested by @jjss49. Also, I don't remember people reporting that condition when using the Gigafoilv4, which is also an optical isolation unit.  I struggle to believe that optical isolation alone would cause glare/hardness plus, I haven't really noticed that in my system.  Therefore, I plan to remove the optical isolation stuff and listen some more to find out whether the absence of an artifact (that I haven't noticed) is noticeable.  Maybe some people just live in areas with a lot of EMI/RFI.

I am also curious about these small isolation filters such as the SOtM iSO-CAT7 and the less expensive EverStar MI-300 discussed in this thread.  What are the similarities/differences between what those passive filters are doing vs. what the Network Acoustics passive filters are doing?   Are they all basically the same sonically, or are there actual sonic differences rather than simply marketing differences?  Is there a benefit that the SOtM and the EverStar filters are capable of operating at higher speeds, while the NA eno and muon filters have a maxed out speed of 100 mbs? 

Too many variables with this stuff typically results in my finding a combination that sounds good at the time and then leaving well enough alone so I can enjoy the music.

@sns

I much appreciate your reply and explanation of your network path solutions. I am strongly leaning toward the Newtwork Acoustics (Probably their MUON filtering system) as an effective network noise suppressor. It’s very straightforward and by many accounts, very successful at its job. A less expensive filter alternative is the SotM ISO CAT-7.

Charles

Charles, my router is router only unit, and yes, close to audio system. My ISP service comes into my dedicated listening room, however, at opposite end of system, originally had modem and router at that end of room with 25' cheaper ethernet cable running to streamer. I then moved both modem and router to system side of room via extending coax cable, also moved to higher quality ethernet with these much shorter runs, result was pretty substantial improvement.

So, the one thing that has always bothered me about this setup is having that wifi contaminate network, both internally created and airborne rfi. I have Trifield meter and the amount of rfi emanating from these routers is extreme. Thus move to get that rfi away from system.

Also, as part of my experimentation of ethernet vs optical, prefer ethernet feeding streamers vs optical, although the one time I did try optical here it was not optimized, therefore, generic FMC both powered by lps, two OpticalModules may have tipped scales in other direction. I did hear slight thinning out or analytical presentation with optical vs ethernet here. Have always preferred optical POST streamer.

I presume preferences of ethernet vs optical are extremely system dependent, I hear no inherent defect in either of these modes. Preference depends on your system and how mode is implemented. Experiments will continue down the road, optimization of optical POST server will have been accomplished soon, will then work on ethernet optimization via JCAT usb xe card in new streamer, all Sonore removed from system.

Also, experiment with second router vs adding audiophile switch, previous experiment found router powered by lps vs adding audiophile switch to router was inferior to router alone. I've always maintained two ethernet ports on every streamer I've owned in recent years, two ethernet ports means switch unneeded. Adding switches only adds more complexity to my setups, and adding switches doesn't get rid of router in vast majority of networks in any case. Virtually every network is using router, and router with wifi if one has need of wifi in home, result is network is contaminated with tons of rfi and if not using lps on router, noise injection. Switches are acting as virtual filters in this case, and efficacy of various ethernet filters is evidence switches aren't doing complete job. I like the idea of the ethernet filter, I use my own with JCAT Net card XE, very effective. Anyway, my take at this point, add the second improved router with lower jitter feed second router with wifi isolated to that router. Wfii contamination injected into audio  system network gone, no need to add switch in my particular case. This setup both simplifies and cleans up my audio network feed.

Another interesting concept I've thought about. Some ISP offer more than one IP address for a single service line, if one had modem with multiple ethernet ports and one IP address per port I've thought it possible to eliminate the router or switch altogether, assuming those separate IP addresses could communicate with each other. Not sure this possible? Another route would be second ISP service one dedicated to audio system, other for rest of house with wifi. Present experiment is to hear efficacy of removing  wifi contamination from audio system.

Managed enterprise level router is another route to ridding oneself of wifi contamination, I have one, steep learning curve, almost had it setup when distracted by other audio things, may get back to this at some point. These types of routers act as routers vs switches, therefore, can assign IP addresses to other network components,  yet have no wifi, through a multitude of settings one can use separate, isolated router to provide wifi for rest of home. Whatbestforum has thread in which UbiquityEdgeRouter being used in this manner, daisy chaining various filters is also mentioned in this thread! The complexity some undertake is never ending!

@lalitk 

Thank you.

Charles

@charles1dad

Check out following discussion by @grannyring. I recommend their Pro Version which are rated for 1Gb/s speed vs standard version limited to 100Mb/s connection speed.

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/network-acoustics-muon-ethernet-filtering-system-improving-streaming

Has anyone here had the opportunity to compare the Network Acoustics ENO and MUON in direct comparison or within a familiar audio system? Both seem to be very worthy  products and I’m curious as to the performance gap between them. That they’re passive filters is appealing. 
Charles

@sns 

Is your Netgear a modem/router combo unit or is it a stand alone router? Is it in close proximity to your server/streaner or distant and remote. Location?

Charles

Well I am tickled pink with adding a filter going into the "Generic"  10Gtek Modules. I also have a .5m FO cable now. 

Funny thing is these modules are all the same the real upgrade on the FO side would be cable and transceivers like @sns said. Also upgraded my ethernet switch to a   NETGEAR 5-Port Gigabit Ethernet Plus Switch (GS105Ev2) - Managed. The boys at Alpha Audio found this to be one of the better switches in their shootout: 

All for under $250.00 and I am good to go for now.

Alpha Audio NET - Huge Live & Blind Switch test – 18-12-2022 – 10:30 CET (alpha-audio.net)

A simpler solution, which doesn't add more noisy power supplies is this one.  Galvanically isolated and 4k V breakthrough voltage:

Optical comes in number of flavors, hearing one or two implementations may not tell the whole story. I've had generic with smps, generic with one lps, generic with two lps, OpticalRendu with generic, OpticalRendu with OpticalModule. I've also used optical both pre and post server or streamer, optical with both switch plus router or router alone. Finally, tried various power cords and lps with the above.

I have Finisar industrial grade optical transceivers coming in Friday along with a custom build optical cable (lowered reflectivity) from AfterDark. These transceivers have lowered jitter vs all other transceivers. So I shall soon have the chance to hear most optimized optical I'm aware of sometime in coming week.

Also further experiments coming via upgraded ISP speed, 600mbps vs 300, already ordered. This along with even better Netgear router, with lower ping time and much better latency, meaning lower jitter than present Netgear. The new Netgear will also have all wifi turned off, assigned IP address to present Netgear which will then provide wifi for everything with exception of streaming chain and NAS. Wifi nasties, meaning RFI will then be segregated and much  further away from my audio system.

Only variable at a time with above so this will take a bit of time to evaluate.

“I don’t have a noise issue”
@mitch2

It will be interesting to hear your feedback once you remove everything in the path and go direct from your modem or router to your Innuos. I know this is A/B is bit of pain but this is the only way to re-evaluate what each of the devices in the signal path doing to enhance your listening.

I am still using fiber/converters into a Bonn switch then eno into my server.  I have tried both fiber and Ethernet between by router and the Bonn switch and really cannot discern a difference as I don't have a noise issue.  However, the hardening issue is interesting so I will try going back to straight Ethernet and listen more.  Easy to do since both the fiber and Ethernet runs remain in-place.

I did move my larger linear power supply near my modem and router and use it to power both, with other smaller linear supplies near the other peripherals. 

@jjss49 I didn’t go all in with linear power supplies for the FMC modules if that’s what you’re referring to. And for several reasons -

• I questioned the unbelievable clutter to improvement ratio of FMC
• FMC units, despite adding LPS will still be generating and injecting enough noise into the signal as part of the conversion process
• A very clean passive implementation of Eno streaming system that requires no power supply therefore introducing no noise of its own
• The level of improvement I got from Eno

You can build a mega component ethernet signal chain with each of the pieces removing some and adding some noise, complicating the troubleshooting process as well as adding potential suspects. We have enough variables with streaming to loose our marbles over.
My personal take on it - for me, less is more. If I’m investing money into fine tuning the streaming it will be to upgrade a DAC/streamer. In my mind that’s where the major improvements come in.

@j_andrews Network Acoustics sells direct. Email them what your set up consists of. They’re very helpful. 

Can someone recommend a U.S. dealer for Network Acoustics?….or does the Eno need to be purchased from the U.K. ?

thanks 

Appreciate the responses. I haven’t identified any hardening of the sound so far, but I’ve also been listening at lower volumes early in the morning. I will say, though, the clutter is more than expected with the FMCs and LPS. I’ve had to spend quite a bit of time with placement and organization. 

For me less is more, ENO is amazing for what it does compare to all the clutter and complexities that accompanies Fiber Optic Kit. Is one better than the other, it comes down your components, personal preferences and budget. As @audphile1 pointed out, try it in your system. 

my 2 cents

if one experiences an added ’glare’ to the produced sound from incorporating fmc modules to cleanse one’s digital feed, then based on my own experience, i believe it is safe to assume the fmc links (modules, cabling, and incorporated power supplies, particularly on the clean side) were not implemented properly

@toro3 only way to find out is to try. 
 

@wjob yup had same exact experience with fiber and Bricasti M3. Had that glsre. Ended up using the Eno alone, sent fiber FMC back. 

I've done exactly this experiment - using a Network Acoustics ENO (with their ethernet cable) - very happy with the improvement over running ethernet over a standard switch directly into my DAC (Bricasti M3 with network card). Just a more relaxed presentation, a touch more clarity.

Since I had a positive experience with the ENO, I bought the SGC fiber bundle when it was on sale (understanding I could buy the equivalent cheaper with Amazon, but hey, support small businesses and get something that has been curated to work together).  I found that using the optical fiber bundle - which has two ethernet-to-fiber converters and an LPS for the DAC side - made the music quieter - more 'blackground' and concluded noise was reduced with the fiber.  That said, after the immediate improvements, I noticed a much harder edge to the sound - much akin to the digital glare of old.  This seems to mesh with observations others have made.  

I put the ENO between the fiber and the DAC, and it improved things a little.  But I preferred the ENO on its own.

About this time, a Sonore Optical Module Deluxe appeared on TMR, and I bought it.  It did improve the hardness I noticed with the basic fiber converter, but it was still there.  Putting the ENO between them was difficult as the connection would drop - not sure why, so I can't say if the Sonore plus ENO would remove any issues.  That said, I still preferred the ENO on its own to the Sonore.

More recently, I upgraded the DAC to a Bricasti M21.  There, the hardness with the fiber is gone - it seems the more expensive Bricasti may have a better grounding scheme or something to remove the noise.  So I am using the fiber with the SONORE module.  The ENO is doing duty in my other system, where I moved the M3 as DAC.

I think it is hard to draw absolute conclusions - a lot seems to depend on your DAC/Streamer's ability to remove noise from its ethernet connection.  It is interesting that my observations about fiber do echo those of others - there does seem to be something in converting from optical back to wire that has some inherent noise. 

Thanks @audphile1 for that confirmation. 
 

I went with the SGC Optical Isolation System and heard a pretty big improvement - so much so I’m contemplating the Optical Module Deluxe. 
 

Here’s a question I’ve been wondering, though. Current setup looks like this:

Mesh router > generic switch > ethernet > FMC > optical > FMC > ethernet > NAD C658 (Roon end point). 
Mesh router > generic switch > Ethernet (15’) > Roon Nucleus.

Nucleus and NAD C658 connected to the same network via switch. NAD does not take USB input from Roon Nucleus.

Question: would FMC between router mesh point and Roon Nucleus have any impact on SQ since NAD and Nucleus are only connected through network switch?

@sns maybe after the silly season. I am taking it under advisement my friend.

Cheers.

@jerryg123 At some point need to try the Sonore products, your streaming setup should provide the necessary resolution/transparency to hear improvements vs generic. I did use generic for couple years with no complaints,  it is effective and certainly huge value for what it does. The Sonore is worthwhile upgrade, as it should be for the price increase vs generic.