Is optical mostly a waste of time versus Ethernet?


The only value I see with a fiber optical cable is if you have a long long run.

All the noise coming into an optical fiber is preserved and comes out the other side. I guess there is a value in not creating more noise while it is traveling through the optical cable. But if it's a short run of two Feet then is it really worth it.  Seems a well shielded Ethernet cable would do just as fine without all the hassle of converting to optical which is a pain in the ass.

I always thought there was value with optical but it seems they're really may not be. Maybe I'm wrong.  It seems a switch likely produces a lot of noise and inserting an audio grade switch is very prudent and going optical really doesn't solve switch noise problem.  The benefit of re-clocking offered by a decent switch to clean up the signal is worthwhile.

jumia

So, here we go again, another thread about bunch of people applying pseudoscience audiophile terms to Ethernet. Nope. Ethernet does not work that way. Ethernet, along with the TCP/IP stack are several layers of error detection and in some layers error correction. If an error is detected the frame, or packet, or datagram is discarded, or in the case of error correction, discarded and the retransmit requested.

So why fiber at all? Copper Ethernet cabling has limited range, 100ft is a safe bet, but depends on speed and cable standard. 
 

but fiber for super short runs like 5ft is crazy waste of money. 

And, final point, Ethernet is a layer 2 protocol. The type of cable does not change this, as the cable is layer 1, regardless if it is fiber or copper, or barbwire (yes, you can run Ethernet over barbwire).

 

So, here we go again, another thread about bunch of people applying pseudoscience audiophile terms to Ethernet. Nope. Ethernet does not work that way. Ethernet, along with the TCP/IP stack are several layers of error detection and in some layers error correction. If an error is detected the frame, or packet, or datagram is discarded, or in the case of error correction, discarded and the retransmit requested.

So why fiber at all? Copper Ethernet cabling has limited range, 100ft is a safe bet, but depends on speed and cable standard. 
 

but fiber for super short runs like 5ft is crazy waste of money. 

Are you saying that bits of music are going to be retransmitted in a stream if an error occurs. I doubt it. I believe a BROADCAST protocol is used instead of the REQUEST/RESPONSE I think you are alluding to. Yes, I program this stuff.

The reason to use Fibre in audio is not for transmission length specifically but for Fibre's ability to stop analog noise from traversing the cable and getting into your DAC. It is very easy to test and more importantly to HEAR the difference.

What I hear with Fibre over Ethernet is improved clarity, especially when using my Benchmark gear, AHB2 + LA4.

 

 

Thank you, although still unclear how are you have cured bidirectional Ethernet connection with a server.  Unfortunately isn't two way communication integral to the process?

A router without Wi-Fi means you should be using a switch if needed.  Not really practical though.

Well, certainly there is bidirectionality on ethernet between router and server, router needs to know server there. The difference is information from music player (Roon in my case) doesn't follow that path, it goes out second ethernet port directly to FMC (in my case) could be streamer or renderer for someone else. Without the second ethernet port information from music player has to go back through the ethernet cable connecting to router or switch.

 

Isn't a router without wifi a switch, never heard of a router without wifi.