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 7 responses by niodari

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? 
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? 
Sure but the "cleaned" signal again enters to DAC, cannot it again poorly extract the sampling info? 
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 is true, but at the same time empirical study cannot exist without a theory, these two things are tied. given a theory, you may verify it empirically if you are unable to prove its soundness theoretically. in physics, this is a common practice, and also in computer science. for example, if a constructed by you mathematical model/theory/algorithm cannot be proved (theoretically) to be good (i.e., be objective, realistic, or
optimal or sub-optimal), you carry our an empirical  study. In  computer science, this involves computational experiments that somehow show  the practical behavior of a given algorithm. pretty similar scenario is in audio stuff where your estimation is based on auditioning
(these are your experiments). but here auditioning experience itself is subjective, unlike physics and computer science, for example, where the experimental results do reflect an "objective reality". in audio world an "objective reality" is subjective, it depends on our taste, mood, current environment etc. 
@djones,

Empirical evidence can also be anecdotal evidence and persons postulating on how much difference a cable makes in the sound coming from their speakers is empirical and anecdotal evidence. 
@audio2design gave an excellent overview, according to which these are  non-empirical evidences, as an empirical evidence reflects objective reality. @audio2design has in fact justified that the most of the arguments here are based on non-empirical, i.e.,  anecdotic evidences. And empirical evidences are somehow related with a theory. For instance, by observing the temperature (an empirical evidence) we rely on the theory based on which thermomiters were designed.  Even anecdotic evidences here rely on theory. E.g., when one judges about sonic properties of a DAC, he relies on the theory on which this dac was built (e.g. Fourier transformation used in sampling/unsampling process or whatever theoretical assumption supporting the architecture of that unit).

From this evidence we build hypotheses is the difference because of the cable or some other factor? Now we can begin to form experiments to understand why this person hears differences between cables or we can just take their word for it only one of these will further our knowledge of cables and human perception and it isn't the latter. 

Indeed, these are subjective realities. Perhaps, thus guy smoke marijuana and every cable, including the tested one,  sounds wonderful for him or he was encouraged by the seller or whatever. 
An empirical evidence based on theory is reliable but unlikely that may occur in these threads.