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
It’s really hard to say "how much" of a difference something makes, because of subjective listening habits and inability to measure. 

Agreed

Although it is nice to have that software option (Foobar

Have you tried HQPlayer?
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.
 My point exactly, will the analog part or digital conversion stage elements suffer from this residual or will it be impervious to it? I haven't noticed any differences myself but others intriguely do, should I say they are delusional or should I give them some credit? I choose the latter, I don't like to dismiss people experiences, unless at some point I realize they are truly delusional.

my personal preferred filter setting is MP/fast (minimal phase, less pre-ringing),

I prefer these filters too

In a home environment, with cheap cables, data losses and retransmits are near zero
This is accurate, if I may I would just add that if the switches support flow control and enough buffers the values will be actually zero and if they don’t if your audio devices do buffering it doesn’t matter if there are errors anyways during transmission.
Have you tried HQPlayer?
Good question. I have used HQplayer for a brief trial period. The UI is a bit primitive, but it provides a great learning opportunity to study the effects of filter design on sq. Essentially, one is able to simulate internal DAC operations. But you have to learn the theory first before making good selections for the various filters. A great resource and highly recommended for anyone interested in the topic. I see a lot of people struggle with it.

In my case, I only applied my limited playtime with HQPlayer to a high-quality ESS9018 based DAC and found very few (subjective) differences between the various options. Not enough for me to put up with the poor UI and make it the primary player for everyday use. As an end-point to Roon perhaps it is better suited.

I also think that if one has a high-quality d/s based DAC of recent design, the benefits of using HQPlayer is greatly diminished.

Luisma31, thank you for your comments.
I haven’t noticed any differences myself but others intriguely do, should I say they are delusional or should I give them some credit? I choose the latter, I don’t like to dismiss people experiences, unless at some point I realize they are truly delusional.

I struggle with this as well, because I found myself in the exact same dilemma. First of, I am not an active blogger unlike others here. And one must avoid not to fall into the pit holes, e.g. endless arguments.

The OT headline of this thread caught my attention. And without becoming too confrontational, I asked "What is the problem opticalRendu is trying to solve?" Why does this device makes such a "huge" difference in perceived improvement?

The "improvement" needs to be put into a different perspective and somehow quantified. My approach now: I think the measurementalists are doing a great service to the community and I read, and listen to them. But by no means are they the only authoritative decision point.

Nobody can ever be fully immune to the "aha - this sounds great" effect, because after all it is wonderful hobby (for most). And therefore nobody should be put down for being excited about the improvement of a certain product, unless it is, as you said, completely delusional. Opinion vary...
I’m a retired Network engineer.  I’ve been involved with wiring, packet tracing and what not (source routed token ring yea). Where I run aground in this issue, is the data prior to the DAC. It’s all digital data packets. Electrical interference or noise makes no changes to the data packets themselves. It could cause a packet not to be received, or fragmented. I would think all/any problems with noise/interference would show up in the  analogue signal path. 
Any one?