EtherREGEN: The long development thread. [Some Gen2 dev. pics and update starting on page 92.]

Superdad · March 22, 2018

[EDIT: The original first post of this long thread had outdated information and so is deleted.]

Development of EtherREGEN is complete. The web page for it is up (UpTone Audio EtherREGEN), and a new thread for the launch has been started. Please see:

mozes · March 22, 2018

12 minutes ago, Superdad said:

So while I love you all

Love you too Alex and John ?

Cornan · March 22, 2018

2 minutes ago, mozes said:

Love you too Alex and John ?

+1.2 ?

pl_svn · March 22, 2018

57 minutes ago, Superdad said:

Case will the exact same size/style as the UltraCap units

will need to place something very heavy on top of it, thanks to my ethernet cables stiffness

please consider making it "wall mountable"

rickca · March 22, 2018

1 hour ago, Superdad said:

Other end will have an SFP Fiber Ethernet cage, an LED, a DC input jack, and the one very special, clean and highly isolated Ethernet "output" jack (which is 10/1000Mb, not Gigabit)

I guess you mean 10/100 Mbps. I hope it's OK to ask for a clarification on this point. Are the SFP fiber ethernet cage and the isolated ethernet output jack two separate ports? If so, I guess I don't understand the role of the SFP cage.

Superdad · March 22, 2018

2 minutes ago, rickca said:

I guess you mean 10/100 Mbps. I hope it's OK to ask for a clarification on this point. Are the SFP fiber ethernet cage and the isolated ethernet output jack two separate ports? If so, I guess I don't understand the role of the SFP cage.

Sorry, yes, 10/100 Mbps.

And yes, the SFP cage is separate from the single special isolated port.

It is there because we could do it.

And some people like to run fiber from their other switch or gear. But no DAC or streamer--that I am aware of--currently has optical fiber Ethernet input.

tboooe · March 23, 2018

On 3/22/2018 at 10:51 AM, Superdad said:

EtherREGEN (that's just a working codename, not saying we will use that)

Put me down for a pre-order unit!!!!!

BTW, love the SFP port!

austinpop · March 25, 2018

On 3/22/2018 at 12:51 PM, Superdad said:

the XO itself

Thanks for sharing!

Just curious - did John and you consider using XO or even OCXO? Was that a cost tradeoff?

Of course, I can wait until you're ready to say more about the clock design.

Albrecht · March 26, 2018

On 3/22/2018 at 10:51 AM, Superdad said:

Hi Blake: Great question, though a bit premature.

Our switch will have one special "output" port (to go to the streamer/DAC), and that port will have a lot of expensive isolator chips (and high-quality clocking on that clean side--which also feeds back across the isolation moat to the switch chip) and crazy attention paid to power (lost track of how many voltage regs the whole thing has) and power plane domains.

So in theory the external DC supply for the EtherREGEN (that's just a working codename, not saying we will use that) should not matter to the performance. But I won't be surprised if in reality it does. Just like with our USB/ISO REGENs--which are plenty effective with their stock SMPS but also benefit from a great LPS.

But of course!

Oh heck, as long as I'm spilling a few beans, I'll give a few more tidbits (but we are saving details about all the whiz-bang performance stuff for the launch, so don't ask about the chips, the clocking, the isolation):

Case will the exact same size/style as the UltraCap units

One end will have four Gigabit "dirty-side" RJ45 Ethernet "input" jacks

Other end will have an SFP Fiber Ethernet cage, an LED, a DC input jack, and the one very special, clean and highly isolated Ethernet "output" jack (which is 10/1000Mb, not Gigabit)

Every part--the magnetics, the Ethernet switch chip, the isolators, the clocking flops, the PHY for special port, the regulators, the clock synthesizer, the XO itself--are all carefully chosen to meed the ambitious goals of this design.

The cost of some of the parts is damn high, and we have not done anything more than a very rough cost analysis, so please don't ask about price. I don't think it will be too bad (with very modest margin similar to LPS-1.2 we are hoping to keep this under $500), but given that it will smoke all those expensive modified off-the-shelf units, it should be another value winner for UpTone.

Please don't ask about release date. You and I want it now, but I promised John he could first continue work on some important "clock fingerprint" measurement test boards. As usual, we would dearly love to prove the efficacy of the REGENs (both USB and Ethernet), and if he is successful, the new measurement jig (involving special high-speed ADCs, a processor board, and a bunch of other boards) could provide proof for a range of upstream variables that we all hear, especially with regards to data clocking for which nobody understands why it makes a difference. Could blow things wide open. Or it could be a bust. That's what research and test is all about.

Of course if the preproduction prototypes of the EtherREGEN test well on the bench--even if John's clock-marker tests don't get done in time or don't pan out--and if the unit is sonically effective in an audio system, then we are going to put it into production as soon as possible.

I honestly can't think of anything more that I would be willing to say about this forthcoming (a few months?) product. So while I love you all, please don't ask.

Back to the wonders and uses of the hot-selling UltraCap LPS-1.2!

--Alex C.

I so can't wait for this!!!

Superdad · March 26, 2018

On 3/25/2018 at 8:47 AM, austinpop said:

Just curious - did John and you consider using XO or even OCXO? Was that a cost tradeoff?

Of course, I can wait until you're ready to say more about the clock design.

Well the clocking in our switch is much more sophisticated than is typical as:

a) we have to pass the clock back across the isolation moat;

b) more than one frequency is used.

That is all I want to say about the clocking architecture at this time.

As for use of an OCXO: As John has written about this, cheap OCXOs are no better (often worse) than a good XO--one needs to spend hundreds (at OEM pricing) to get a really good OCXO. And for data clocks (for USB, Ethernet, or processors), such is total overkill. Save really great clocks for the DAC audio clock(s). Even the clock boards in the SOtM units don't use a OCXO as a reference for the SiLabs synthesizer chip.

Besides, this switch--and the issues we are tackling--is about far more than just clocking...

3 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

I so can't wait for this!!!

That makes quite a few of us!

austinpop · March 26, 2018

4 hours ago, Superdad said:

Well the clocking in our switch is much more sophisticated than is typical as:

a) we have to pass the clock back across the isolation moat;

b) more than one frequency is used.

That is all I want to say about the clocking architecture at this time.

As for use of an OCXO: As John has written about this, cheap OCXOs are no better (often worse) than a good XO--one needs to spend hundreds (at OEM pricing) to get a really good OCXO. And for data clocks (for USB, Ethernet, or processors), such is total overkill. Save really great clocks for the DAC audio clock(s). Even the clock boards in the SOtM units don't use a OCXO as a reference for the SiLabs synthesizer chip.

Besides, this switch--and the issues we are tackling--is about far more than just clocking...

Hi Alex,

Well - I am going to defer to John's expertise on this. Major kudos to him and you for trying to demystify this space. The audiophile switch market is heating up, and it will be interesting to contrast what you guys come up with versus other approaches:

SOtM-modded switches, slaved to sCLK-EX on another box, in turn fed by an expensive OCXO 10 MHz reference clock
SOtM's impending standalone switch (details unknown)
Linear Solutions switch (OCXO in situ, plus external LPS)

I have no horse in this race. I just know how much I love the sound quality of config #1, which is what I currently have. If you guys can deliver that or better at a fraction of the cost, you'll have a major winner!

Superdad · March 26, 2018

33 minutes ago, austinpop said:

If you guys can deliver that or better at a fraction of the cost, you'll have a major winner!

Well you already know that great "bang-for-the-buck" and delivering real improvements are what UpTone is all about!

So that's the goal with the new-thinking switch as well.

We have a philosophy of doing all the important things well in a circuit--and avoiding excessive (expensive) focus on any one aspect. (We see that sort of thing with a lot of digital products.) John would rather get to the root of the issues and do things right from the ground up.

tboooe · April 1, 2018

I am really excited about this. When I switched to Server 2016 core, I lost the ability to have a direct Ethernet connection between my HQP PC and NAA via a bridge. Having to use a switch has taken away some of the dynamics and magic. Hopefully this new Uptone product will help restore the great sound I was getting.

JohnSwenson · April 1, 2018

As Alex mentioned I am just finishing up a complex test system for actually doing an end to end clock analysis (digital data stream to DAC output) in order to really nail down what is going on in our systems. There are several hypothesis for what is going on, and several possible schemes for suppressing these, I will be testing all of these out, and the one that works the best will go in the switch.

This is not JUST a development project, there is a lot of fundamental research going on. I have been doing a bunch already, enough to know that SOMETHING is going on, but not enough detail to figure out what it really is. That's what this stage of testing is all about.

So even if I wanted to spill the beans, I can't, we don't exactly know what beans are going to be yet!

The result of the above is that there is no way to speed this up, I HAVE to go through the research first before we can get to the details. We know what seats we are going to have, what the dashboard will look like, probably what tires, but not sure what engine is going to be in there.

John S.

pl_svn · April 1, 2018

2 hours ago, R1200CL said:

Why 4 ports ?

- Router (not everyone will use optical fiber)

- NAS

- Player (computer/network streamer)

- DSP (eg. HQ-Player, on a separate machine)

(- Network renderer -> OUT)

Superdad · April 2, 2018

13 minutes ago, Celts88 said:

Any chance of the 2 x Superclean ports being a goer, or is that a no go?

I decline to state why, but that is a no-go. Would require a second Ethernet switch chip. If I say anything more we would begin to give away competitive details. Sorry.

Since the price of the product will be as reasonable as we can make it, so folks who really need 2 of the super-clean outputs may simply purchase two units.

ChrisG · April 2, 2018

Guess my system must be close to endgame since the only thing that is exciting me lately is the EtherREGEN!

Celts88 · April 2, 2018

2 hours ago, Superdad said:

I decline to state why, but that is a no-go. Would require a second Ethernet switch chip. If I say anything more we would begin to give away competitive details. Sorry.

Alex

Understand if it could compromise your design to keep quiet.

2 hours ago, Superdad said:

Since the price of the product will be as reasonable as we can make it, so folks who really need 2 of the super-clean outputs may simply purchase two units.

That's really generous of you to offer 2-to-1 price, thanks I'll have 88 please

On a more serious note, do you think going to my Antipodes Server or Devialet Amp, which would give the best option for the Superclean Ethernet. I suppose when listening to Antipodes I plug that into the SC port, and when listening to internet streamed to Devialet Amp plug that into SC port.

I've currently got an Aqvox switch, so assume your EtherREGEN would be a better option than that

warpeon · April 2, 2018

This could be a game changer for me... I was considering to send my wifi router to get it modded to get to a cleaner network. Perhaps EtherRegen would already do the trick for me.

looking forward to the details on:

1) recommended setup: I guess the typical setup for most people is - Modem --> Wifi Router --> switch --> a) NAS, b) Computer (probably a Roon Server), c) streamer. Where should EtherRegen(s) be placed

2) some technical explanations:

a) why the clean port is 10/100 not 10/1000?

b) the presence of the SFP, is it for bridging 2 EtherGen?

c) LPS1.2 can power EtherRegen?

d) best placement in the recommended setup and why?

octaviars · April 2, 2018

@warpeon I dont think you will get much answers right now from @Superdad as the product is still in development.

As the clean port is supposed to feed the streamer it should be placed right before it. In my system I would go from router to etherregen and connect my NUC with Roon ROCK on the dirty side of the etherregen and my SOtM sMS-200ultra on the clean streamer port.

I think it is easier to get a PHY chip with 10/100 cleaner than a 100/1000 but that part will perhaps be explained when more information is coming out.

I suppose the SFP is for them that wants to get totall galvanic isolation between two networks.

I think that Alex wrote the LPS-1 will power it.

JohnSwenson · April 2, 2018

3 hours ago, warpeon said:

This could be a game changer for me... I was considering to send my wifi router to get it modded to get to a cleaner network. Perhaps EtherRegen would already do the trick for me.

looking forward to the details on:

1) recommended setup: I guess the typical setup for most people is - Modem --> Wifi Router --> switch --> a) NAS, b) Computer (probably a Roon Server), c) streamer. Where should EtherRegen(s) be placed

2) some technical explanations:

a) why the clean port is 10/100 not 10/1000?

b) the presence of the SFP, is it for bridging 2 EtherGen?

c) LPS1.2 can power EtherRegen?

d) best placement in the recommended setup and why?

The new switch does two main things:

1: blocks leakage current from upstream so no leakage current travels through the Ethernet cable to the renderer etc.

2: blocks clocking issues from upstream network devices and provides its own very low phase noise clocking on the "clean" port.

Because of the no leakage current on the downstream cable you don't have to worry about audio cables picking up noise from the leakage current. BUT the upstream cables still have leakage current running through them. Because of this it is a BAD idea to place the switch right in with your audio equipment. You want to keep it somewhat away from the audio system so noise from the upstream cable doesn't get picked up. Do not set this (or ANY) switch on top of your DAC etc.

You can use this as a general purpose switch to plug in routers, NAS etc and feed the clean port to the streamer, OR can use as a "clean up" device near the audio system with just one upstream connection and the clean connection. It's entirely up to you how you want to configure that. The extra ports are there to make it convenient for you to use it in many different configurations.

The added expense of the extra ports is quite small, so we decided that if we can fit them on the case somehow to go ahead and include them.

Why is the clean output 10/100 not gigabit? Because it is much cleaner to do so. A significant amount of jitter on a Ethernet cable come from noise on the power/ground (PG) networks inside the chip. The more stuff is going on and the faster it is doing it, the more noise gets generated on the PG network. Gigabit has way more stuff going on inside, thus generates a lot more noise, which causes significantly more jitter. By keeping it down to 100 the clean port has much lower jitter.

The SFP port is there because it is very easy to do and very cheap to add. Some people already have optical networks in their home, this just makes it a lot easier to use for them. There is no specific purpose for it, other than another "dirty side" port which makes it easier to use for some people.

Yes an LPS-1.2 can power it, but you have to be careful there. As with what I have been talking about in other threads, part of the leakage blocking needs a ground connection to the switch. The LPS-1.2 specifically isolates the ground so you will need another way to ground the switch. We will most likely be adding some form of grounding connection on the case for this purpose. The UASMPS provided with the switch already has the DC output grounded so no separate grounding needs to be done. The internal power network in the switch will be extremely good, the result is that there should be no advantage to using an LPS-1.2.

John S.

JohnSwenson · April 2, 2018

As to the questions on PoE, it will not support PoE in any form. PoE works by running very high voltage low current DC over the Ethernet wires (the wires are thin so it has to be low current), this requires very high ratio switching DC/DC converters on both ends. The converters are NOT known for being low noise. The whole purpose of this switch is to make things as low noise as possible, throwing in PoE would completely destroy that.

John S.

octaviars · April 2, 2018

49 minutes ago, JohnSwenson said:

BUT the upstream cables still have leakage current running through them. Because of this it is a BAD idea to place the switch right in with your audio equipment. You want to keep it somewhat away from the audio system so noise from the upstream cable doesn't get picked up.

If the upstream cables uses your ground solution (JSSG) will the radiated noise still be a problem to consider in a system?

JohnSwenson · April 3, 2018

4 hours ago, octaviars said:

If the upstream cables uses your ground solution (JSSG) will the radiated noise still be a problem to consider in a system?

Yes if the cables are shielded properly with my shielding techniques then the radiated leakage current is hugely reduced so it will not a be a problem.

John S.

JohnSwenson · April 3, 2018

2 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

@JohnSwenson

Now, I must have been missing or mixing something from the other treads.

If a LPS-1/1.2 is powering on those present mentioned switches, and the Meanwell is modified with the shunt or I use the new UASMPS, do I still need to add JSGT on the DC comming from the LPS-1/1.2 powering that switch (Cisco SG108D-08 / Netgear FS105 as an example). ?

Yes,

the blocking of upstream leakage only happens when the ground plane in the switch is actually grounded. The easiest way to make sure that happens is to ground the negative of the power supply. Some switches have a ground screw, but that just grounds the CASE, NOT the ground plane of the PCB.

The LPS-1(.2) deliberately blocks the ground connection from the input to output, so even if the INPUT is grounded, the output is NOT grounded. Thus a separate ground connection on the output is required if you want to get rid of the leakage from upstream network devices.

The new switch will contain a similar connection scheme as is used on the "special" switches so the upstream leakage reduction works in the same way.

John S.

EtherREGEN: The long development thread. [Some Gen2 dev. pics and update starting on page 92.]

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in