are NET Switches worth considering?

Generally, fiber moats should lower the noise floor, but some have reported it reduces the “life” of the music.

if this is the sonic result, you have not done it correctly

@jjss49 

+1, Indeed! 

The proof is in the implementation, so let’s re-iterate for anyone following along.

A basic SFP + media converter chain often recommended here because it’s inexpensive; typically looks like this:

Router → RJ45 → media converter → SFP module → fiber → SFP → media converter → RJ45 → streamer

On the surface, it achieves optical isolation. But it also introduces multiple conversion stages, generic clocks, switching power supplies, and a fair amount of uncontrolled variables at each junction.

In other words, it’s a networking workaround not an audio-optimized solution.

That distinction matters. Because once you move to a purpose-built device like the Matrix Audio SI-1, you’re not just isolating…you’re controlling power, clocking, signal integrity, and noise within a single, coherent design. That’s where the real gains come from, and why two ‘optical’ solutions don’t necessarily sound the same in practice, IMHO. 

FWIW to add somewhat to this conversation I have acquired an LHY SW10 Pro Audiophile switch. I have had it about 2 weeks. The LHY has a lot of innovative features including dual mono transformers, a high quality OCXO master clock, linear power supply, and optical isolation. It has been working well for me, I've noticed a silence in the background and more  information. If your system is revealing this may help but it's not a huge change but still rather enjoyable and worth while for me. 

@mdalton I just added the TP-Link MC220L and fiber thing.  Incredible difference in sound, space, depth.  Just wow.  Well worth it. 

@lalitk 

On the surface, (simple fiber) achieves optical isolation. But it also introduces multiple conversion stages, generic clocks, switching power supplies, and a fair amount of uncontrolled variables at each junction.

In other words, it’s a networking workaround not an audio-optimized solution.

That distinction matters. Because once you move to a purpose-built device like the Matrix Audio SI-1, you’re not just isolating…you’re controlling power, clocking, signal integrity, and noise within a single, coherent design. That’s where the real gains come from, and why two ‘optical’ solutions don’t necessarily sound the same in practice, IMHO. 

Yeah, nail on the head. Thanks again for sharing your experiences with the community, they are much more extensive than mine, but I am trying to catch up.

Agreed: Getting fiber for the sake of having optical isolation in the chain may be worse, I know this from experience. And seasoned listeners will figure out what seems like a higher resolution, better sound at first becomes a less fulfilling, less natural sound upon a longer period of time. But yes, I can accept there may be some experiments that people may prefer. If it sounds better, it is better. I think that is a slogan from some company, can’t remember which 

There are many world class digital engineers who have tested, and listened to, many options and inputs and what they have in their products is what they feel is best. Implementation is paramount. 

Here is a great interview with one of those world class engineers, worth watching every second of the 2.5 hours of it IMO, but if someone is interested in hearing why Playback Designs does not integrate a "simple" fiber optic input into their DAC units, skip to 1:39 to hear Andreas’ answer. However, don’t come to the conclusion Andreas does not believe in optical isolation: They employ their own proprietary technique, which they offer and recommend for best sound quality, the difference being it is contained in a separate box with a separate power supply, similar to a universal box like the Matrix Audio unit. I believe Andreas knows what he is talking about. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rh6CclAdes