bits is bits

“Doesn’t a run of SFP fiber between listening room and utility room serve that purpose?”
@devinplombier 

Yes, it would. I personally didn’t care for using SFP fiber and converters in my system. For context, my streamer doesn’t have a native SFP port, so I ran a fiber optic link with converters on both ends between the router and the streamer. The result, though technically clean, made the sound feel sterile and dry. 

I settled a while ago on Telegartner Opt Bridge. It converts incoming copper (Ethernet) to an internal optical domain, then back to copper, thereby breaking ground-loops and removing parasitic noise. I am also using a LHY LPS to power the Opt Bridge. 

@sns I am streaming MQA from Tidal. Not everything was replaced. 
 

 

devinplombier

1,064 posts

10-26-2025 at 11:30pm 

@lalitk 

Doesn't a run of SFP fiber between listening room and utility room serve that purpose?

No. Most streamers use RJ45 connection. That long run of fiber will end with a fiber to copper converter and you are back to copper going into your streamer. Which isn’t the end of the world. Isolating it well and using good quality cables is easy. 
Let’s not overthink the cable aspect too much. Quality of recordings and a playback chain as well as room acoustics play a much bigger role than copper or fiber.
Don’t sweat it too much. 

I replaced the ethernet cable between my streamer and switch with SFP optical fibre. As far as I can discern, it made absolutely zero difference to sound quality.

That's in a highly resolving system. Both the Linn Klimax DSM/3 streamer and Melco S100 switch have SFP ports and I used the often recommended Finisar optical modules. 

Other changes I have made in the past like adding the Melco switch and upgrading the streamer have been beneficial, but the SFP optical fibre wasn't. Others using the same streamer have reported improvement from changing to fibre. Maybe the Melco is already providing sufficient isolation.

I have both Qobuz and Tidal-have for years. I wouldn't try to say what sounds universally "best" to someone else- anybody that does that can't possibly know-people have different, individual preferences-I know people who say they prefer Tidal, Qobuz, or Amazon, for that matter and blind tests show that preferences differ. That's no shock, just common sense. 

Personally, I find very little difference. I prefer the Qobuz interface, so use it more but I've heard tracks I thought were best on Tidal. That said, I doubt I could tell the difference in a properly conducted blind test. There is also the issue that any kind of SQ test between music services is useless unless you know you have the exact same versions on each service-the same master, etc. Likely why some tracks sound better on one service-some on another.

I suggest anyone choosing between lossless services pay a lot of attention to which interface you like best-that might dictate which service will give you a better experience and that also is subject to individual preference. If you think there is a significant difference in sound quality-listen for yourself. There is no universal "best" only best for you. 

There's a lot to "unpack" with digital audio. In a nutshell

#1 you can't assume Tidal and Qobuz received the same file in the first place

#2 assume the same TCP/IP packets all arrive to your streamer bit perfect, now look at what happens next from the renderer, DAC, and eventual output.

Same bits, different results