Network Acoustics Eno Streaming System vs SGC Optical Isolation System

Charles, my router is router only unit, and yes, close to audio system. My ISP service comes into my dedicated listening room, however, at opposite end of system, originally had modem and router at that end of room with 25' cheaper ethernet cable running to streamer. I then moved both modem and router to system side of room via extending coax cable, also moved to higher quality ethernet with these much shorter runs, result was pretty substantial improvement.

So, the one thing that has always bothered me about this setup is having that wifi contaminate network, both internally created and airborne rfi. I have Trifield meter and the amount of rfi emanating from these routers is extreme. Thus move to get that rfi away from system.

Also, as part of my experimentation of ethernet vs optical, prefer ethernet feeding streamers vs optical, although the one time I did try optical here it was not optimized, therefore, generic FMC both powered by lps, two OpticalModules may have tipped scales in other direction. I did hear slight thinning out or analytical presentation with optical vs ethernet here. Have always preferred optical POST streamer.

I presume preferences of ethernet vs optical are extremely system dependent, I hear no inherent defect in either of these modes. Preference depends on your system and how mode is implemented. Experiments will continue down the road, optimization of optical POST server will have been accomplished soon, will then work on ethernet optimization via JCAT usb xe card in new streamer, all Sonore removed from system.

Also, experiment with second router vs adding audiophile switch, previous experiment found router powered by lps vs adding audiophile switch to router was inferior to router alone. I've always maintained two ethernet ports on every streamer I've owned in recent years, two ethernet ports means switch unneeded. Adding switches only adds more complexity to my setups, and adding switches doesn't get rid of router in vast majority of networks in any case. Virtually every network is using router, and router with wifi if one has need of wifi in home, result is network is contaminated with tons of rfi and if not using lps on router, noise injection. Switches are acting as virtual filters in this case, and efficacy of various ethernet filters is evidence switches aren't doing complete job. I like the idea of the ethernet filter, I use my own with JCAT Net card XE, very effective. Anyway, my take at this point, add the second improved router with lower jitter feed second router with wifi isolated to that router. Wfii contamination injected into audio  system network gone, no need to add switch in my particular case. This setup both simplifies and cleans up my audio network feed.

Another interesting concept I've thought about. Some ISP offer more than one IP address for a single service line, if one had modem with multiple ethernet ports and one IP address per port I've thought it possible to eliminate the router or switch altogether, assuming those separate IP addresses could communicate with each other. Not sure this possible? Another route would be second ISP service one dedicated to audio system, other for rest of house with wifi. Present experiment is to hear efficacy of removing  wifi contamination from audio system.

Managed enterprise level router is another route to ridding oneself of wifi contamination, I have one, steep learning curve, almost had it setup when distracted by other audio things, may get back to this at some point. These types of routers act as routers vs switches, therefore, can assign IP addresses to other network components,  yet have no wifi, through a multitude of settings one can use separate, isolated router to provide wifi for rest of home. Whatbestforum has thread in which UbiquityEdgeRouter being used in this manner, daisy chaining various filters is also mentioned in this thread! The complexity some undertake is never ending!

@sns

I much appreciate your reply and explanation of your network path solutions. I am strongly leaning toward the Newtwork Acoustics (Probably their MUON filtering system) as an effective network noise suppressor. It’s very straightforward and by many accounts, very successful at its job. A less expensive filter alternative is the SotM ISO CAT-7.

Charles

@lalitk 

It will be interesting to hear your feedback once you remove everything in the path and go direct from your modem or router to your Innuos. I know this is A/B is bit of pain but this is the only way to re-evaluate what each of the devices in the signal path doing to enhance your listening.

You are right about it being a pain, but realistically the only choice to have even a chance of determining what each of these things are doing.  My problem is having too many things here.  I just received a Denafrips Hermes DDC that I wanted to use to convert USB out of my streamer/server (which is Mojo Audio's DejaVu and not Innuous, btw) to AES/EBU that will then input into my Mojo Audio Mystic X SE DAC (which is not yet shown on my system page).  Unfortunately, there are some setup issues with the Hermes that I am working through with Vinshine currently so I have not yet heard what it can do.

The simplest path into the server may be my CAT8 Ethernet cable directly from the router into my Bonn switch and then the eno system cable/filter from the switch to my streamer/server.  In addition to that stuff, I also have fiber and converters  (currently installed), as well as the Gigafoilv4 (not installed),  and could use either to provide optical isolation.  The reports by @wjob and others in this thread of glare/hardness related to optical isolation using convertors have me wondering whether the pairing of both optical isolation and the Network Acoustics stuff is causing an issue when used together, or whether the issue is the byproduct of SMPS power supplies on convertors, or some other implementation issue as suggested by @jjss49. Also, I don't remember people reporting that condition when using the Gigafoilv4, which is also an optical isolation unit.  I struggle to believe that optical isolation alone would cause glare/hardness plus, I haven't really noticed that in my system.  Therefore, I plan to remove the optical isolation stuff and listen some more to find out whether the absence of an artifact (that I haven't noticed) is noticeable.  Maybe some people just live in areas with a lot of EMI/RFI.

I am also curious about these small isolation filters such as the SOtM iSO-CAT7 and the less expensive EverStar MI-300 discussed in this thread.  What are the similarities/differences between what those passive filters are doing vs. what the Network Acoustics passive filters are doing?   Are they all basically the same sonically, or are there actual sonic differences rather than simply marketing differences?  Is there a benefit that the SOtM and the EverStar filters are capable of operating at higher speeds, while the NA eno and muon filters have a maxed out speed of 100 mbs? 

Too many variables with this stuff typically results in my finding a combination that sounds good at the time and then leaving well enough alone so I can enjoy the music.

What are the similarities/differences between what those passive filters are doing vs. what the Network Acoustics passive filters are doing? Are they all basically the same sonically, or are there actual sonic differences rather than simply marketing differences?

Yep! Always the question with audio products. Sorting out the facts versus persuasive hype and hyperbole.

Charles