scolley

Great question, but in the interest of full disclosure I’m not sure how much I can add to what I’ve already said. It is worth nothing I sold my more expensive Nordost Heimdall II’s a couple of weeks later with no regrets. After that I got a new amp. But the decision to try a new amp was predicated on the fact that I was already totally committed to the Fidelium ICs. Every day I listened after the first few days remained a delight. Now with the new amp the change has reinforced what the Fidelium ICs do. In short, they bring amazing detail to the music. That detail is both improved transients; radically improving the you-hear-the-performance-room experience, plus making acoustic instruments sound more “real”, but also radically decreased time smearing; complex passages with multiple instruments becoming clearly audible vs. a sonic mush, as it were. What they do not appear to do is change the tonal nature of the sound. My new amp has done that. I keep checking the Fidelium website to see if they are publicly available, but apparently not yet. I’m actually looking forward to more people trying them, if for no other reason than that I know that for many people, these are going to be transformative, at an affordable cost. In retrospect I realized that my impressions were based on my particular system. Specifically my DAC being connected straight to my amp - vs. a preamp in the middle - means that I only need one pair of ICs to hear the full benefit. Even if I had to by two pair though, I’d still consider them a “must listen”, ‘cuz they are so amazing.

Everyone's mileage will vary, of course. But to my ears they were actually a larger improvement than the Fidelium speaker cables. As I recall, that was another switch from Nordost to Fideliums, in this case Blue Heaven speaker cables very well bested by the Fideliums. But IMO the interconnect upgrade was actually a bit better, and that was not expected.

It appears I misunderstood some of what Jeffrey Smith had told me about the Fidelium IC's, and thus I posted some incorrect information in my OP above. Jeffery has corrected my understanding, as follows. The conductors are NOT exposed, they are COMPLETELY insulated. And apparently the visible gold color is the Kapton in which the foil is laminated, just like with the Fidelium speaker cables, just not as wide. And the colored thread in the black mesh is an additional channel marking, red for right and white for left. So I guess it's an OK cable to have, even if you do have pets that chew on wires. :-) PS - I don't post a lot here, so I may be missing something, but I don't see any way to edit my original post for corrections. If I knew how to do that, as I would like to have the correct facts in the OP.

Silversmith Audio's Fidelium XLR Interconnects are not yet available to the public, but I was lucky enough to get an early pair, so am sharing my experience. I’m guessing that my being a very early adopter of the Silversmith Audio Fidelium speakers cables played some factor in Silversmith’s proprietor Jeffry Smith’s decision to allow me early access to his new Fidelium interconnects. Whatever the reason, I’m absolutely delighted he did. With assurances of a 30 return period I was able to purchase for trial a pair of 4.5 foot XLR ICs, priced at $1,125. I was not expecting a large sonic change. My existing ICs are Nordost Heimdall II’s, and Jeffrey indicated in an email that my Nordost's had already had some of the physical characteristics that made his ICs sound so good. So I wasn’t expecting much. That plus I assumed that no interconnect could make that much of a difference until I first made upgrades to my room, speakers and amps. My assumption was that with my current high quality ICs, there was no way they could be a weak link in the chain. The cables arrived in simple - yet quite adequate - packaging. I’m given to understand that fancier packaging is in the works, the absence of such now being a part of the reason why these cables are not yet on the market. I found the cables to be of nice, quality build. Not heavy at all and very flexible. The XLR connectors appear to be well constructed, with the conductors themselves hidden inside a black mesh cable sleeve. Jeffrey tells me that the conductors themselves are narrow foils that are 20% better than the foil conductors in the Fidelium speaker cables, sitting on top of each other and separated by a thin cotton layer. The foil is somewhat visible through the black mesh sleeve, appearing gold or amber due to the foil's thin Kapton insulation. The cables have a thin red tracer spiraling through the black mesh of the right cable, and a thin white tracer spiraling through the left cable. IMO it looks nice. Clearly the cable geometry is designed for a very low dielectric - mostly air - which is great. In my digital-only system my Meitner MA3 DAC connects directly to my PS Audio M700 mono-block amps via XLR interconnects, and that’s where these Fidelium ICs were placed. The MA3 sits on a set of three Symposium Rollerblocks (titanium bearings), so it is a somewhat free floating component. The current Nordost Heimdall II XLR interconnects are both stiff, and heavy. The Rollerblocks make a quite audible sonic improvement over stock MA3 footers, but I’ve always been concerned about the weight with which the Heimdall’s pushed them down, and the restriction they placed on free-floating DAC movement. Happily the light, flexible nature of the Fidelium ICs improved things in both respects, quite a bit. So now it gets down to the sound. I’m not very good at describing what I hear, but I’ll try. In short, the difference was huge. Huge. Jeffrey Smith said that I should hear immediate improvements in the “time domain”. I’m not sonically technical enough to understand what that really means, but when playing well recorded acoustic tracks, the resolution of the space the instruments were played in was just amazing. Rooms played in sounded larger. Cymbals - in particular - had a clarity I’d never heard before. Drums more distinct, less muddy. And vocals took on more immediacy, more in-your-face clarity. It may be more accurate to say that everything was rendered with greater clarity. How much more? Hard to put a number on that, but in 45 years as an on-a-budget audiophile, I’ve never heard so much of an improvement between two components that should have been comparable; those components being the old and new ICs. For just a few minutes I put the old ICs back, just to make sure I was not imagining things. IT was immediately clear that I was not. I've got a good friend that is a true golden ear, so I had him come over for a listen, doing a little A/B between the cables. My system is in a mostly enclosed stand, so it was not possible for him to see which IC was in use, but he might guess. So I had my wife flip a coin to determine if I would start with the old cables in place, or the new. The coin toss dictated we start with the old cables. When my friend came by for a listen, we played 2-4 minutes of four tracks on the old Nordost Heimdall IIs. Then I switched - not visible to my friend - and began replay of the same four tracks. Thirty seconds into the first track he said he'd already reached a conclusion, though he did not want to say anything yet, but was ready for the next track. He didn't need to hear the whole track. About 15 seconds into it he said, "Next track". He did the same thing on the next track, ready for a new track in 15 seconds. Whatever he was hearing, he clearly was not needing to listen to much of a track to know that he had identified a difference. After playing the first 15 seconds of the last track, he declared that the "A" connection (Nordost Heimdalls) was so vastly inferior to the "B" connection (Fidelium ICs) that the difference in clarity - across all frequencies - was night and day. I mentioned that I agreed, and that I felt it was at least a 15 to 20 percent bump in the quality of that sound. He replied that I was being foolish, for he felt it could be 50% improvement, that the improvement was "Massive". This improvement is similar to what I heard when I swapped out my Nordost Blue Heaven II speaker cables for Fidelium speaker cables a few years ago. But as dramatic as change was, this even more more dramatic. Could I be hearing such a huge difference because I have - with the benefit of the Fidelium speaker cables - a highly resolving system now? Jeffry Smith has told me that my thinking is incorrect, because quite humble systems will also resolve audibly better. As with all system upgrades and changes, over time your ear gets used to the new sound. I got these new Fidelium IC's two months ago, and have listened to them many, many hours, and had assumed I had become used to the new sound. But this past week I got a major surprise. I am a life long Pink Floyd fan. My favorite of their albums being Dark Side of the Moon. But I've listened to that album too many times. Now I probably don't put it on any more often than annually. The other day I put it on - my best copy, a PCM RIP from a Japanese SACD, 30th Anniversary Edition - and was nothing less than shocked and thrilled at what I heard. I've heard this album hundreds and hundreds of times,but this time everything changed. Detail was off the charts. I heard voices singing that for all my life I thought was a single voice singing, but now was clearly a single voice overlaid (at a tiny timing variance) by itself. Is that overdubbing? Like a chorus of a single voice. Whatever it is, I’d never heard it before. Detail - needless to say - was quite audibly more evident than I’d ever heard hundreds (thousands?) of times before. And the changes were tonal also… a richness to vocals I’d not experienced before. Tighter bass, and much better localized (spatially) images. MUCH better resolution of the recording space, and far, far more easily understood vocals. The alarm clocks' clanging was even much less grating because they resolved so well. In conclusion, I cannot recommend giving a listen to these interconnects more highly, once they become publicly available. Short of a change in speakers, I have never experienced a larger improvement by changing a single "component". I've a very few come close, but I'm giving Fidelium XLR interconnects my lifelong top spot for system upgrades. IMO they are a game changer, and should give some big industry players a run for their money.

As a followup, I did the first couple swaps by just powering down the amps, with no problem. Given my particular amps; PS Audio M700's, there was both a button on front to start the power down/power up process, I was also sure to use the toggle switch on the back panels to totally shut down power to the amps. Worked like a charm.

Thanks for the feedback. And I won't disagree with the value of long term listening, but in this particular case I have reason to believe the sonic difference many be dramatic. Long term listening will still be of value, but quick swaps may just prove amusingly eye opening. Thanks again. :-)

Oh, I should add that the ICs are balanced XLRs, vs. RCAs. To my understanding that does not change anything, but I don’t know what I don’t know. ‘Tis the reason for my OP. Just switching off the amps seems reasonable to me. But this is an area where unexpected consequences can - and do - happen.

I’ve got some new interconnects that I’d like to do A/B testing on, somewhat quickly switching between old and new cables. Best practice would dictate powering off each of the two components connected by the ICs. But at least one of the two, in my case, suffers sonically if not VERY well warmed up. More specifically… The ICs are between my DAC and my mono amps. There is no preamp in between because all I play is digital, and my DAC has an amazing volume control. So it’s a straight connection from the DAC to the amps. The problem with switching ICs is that the DAC is very sensitive to power interruptions, with regard to SQ. The amps, on the other hand, do not appear to suffer so much from minor power off times. They are class D, so maybe that’s a factor. So I’m thinking I might be able to change interconnects by switching my amps briefly off, while leaving the DAC on. Is that safe? Thanks for the help.

And astute observation by @superdad. But I would offer - in my limited experience - that if the cables themselves are given some freedom of movement - good cables with RollerBalls under the DAC is still a killer combination. Would it be better with limber cables that still provided great shielding? How could it not? But it’s still a sonically wonderful compromise.

I can certainly say that putting Symposium RollerBall Jr's, with the Tungsten ball upgrade, resting on Symposium Fat Padz, made quite the positive audible difference under my DAC, and my stand already had vibration isolation. Possibly a whole lot less money than an expensive stand, depending on how many components need isolation from seismic noise. Though I would underscore that while the Fat Padz made a small difference, the upgrade from the stock balls to the Tungsten balls was a significant bump in SQ.

Eric/TomJ - please accept my sincere apologies. CLEARLY I misunderstood the tenure of the conversation. Sorry. :-(

OK, I’m going to weigh in on this, but not with objective measurements. All I have is subjective listening observations. Though my observations were confirmed in a series of single blind tests with a true golden eared buddy of mine. You mention Ed Meitner. Not long ago I bought one of his MA-3 DACs. Wonderful DAC, but that’s beside the point. My first impression of his jitter reducing technology was that it was SO good at it that my EtherREGEN and its external clock were no longer needed. But after my ears acclimated to the vastly improved sound - vs. my old Mytek Brooklyn Bridge - I realized that the ER still helped. But now, only a little. Clearly the MA-3 was shouldering a lot of jitter reduction. That became easy to hear, and I was not concerned with substantiation of that observation. But the external clock was another matter. Long story short, using my old Brooklyn Bridge DAC, use of the external clock with the ER was night and day. It helped a LOT. But with the Meitner MA-3 it only matters with the very best of material (high res AND well recorded/mastered), and even then, the difference is subtle. So I’m not even bothering with my external clock any more. Need to sell it. As previously mentioned, that conclusion of the value - or lack thereof - of the external clock was subtle enough that I set up single blind tests for my golden ear buddy, who came to the same conclusion. Don’t know if that helps. It is subjective. But I am 100% certain of its veracity.

IMO this is a conversation better suited for the temple of measurement worship: Audio Science Review. In this forum making decisions based on what you hear generally has merit, and comments like “if you can’t measure it, it’s not real” is just trolling at worst, but off topic at best. So, can we get back on topic please? Thanks.

Thanks a mil’ for the great explanation John! The Rollerblocks are under the MA3 DAC, and boy what a difference. Now I’m wondering if some should go under the OCXO clock connected to my eR?

SECOND - FOLLOW UP - TEST My first critical listening session with my golden ear buddy Mike had one test that did not turn out as expected. When it became clear that the UpTone Audio EtherREGEN did improved an MS3's sonics - to some extent - it would have been natural to assume that the EtherREGEN with an external OCXO clock attached (ER using the external clock over its own) would have only made that better. But it did not; it did the opposite. I had to acknowledge that though I had kept the clock plugged in continuously, I had moved it a few hours before the test. That could have effected clock performance. Personally, I doubted it, but I still felt compelled to test that again. So roughly six weeks ago I moved the clock back into a permanent and stable location, and let it settle in. Then yesterday I had Mike my golden ear buddy back for a long listening session. The results were unambiguous, heard not just by Mike, but even sitting way out of the sweet spot, were also clear to me. The results? On the best recordings, a quality external OCXO clock - that has had weeks to settle - when connected to an EtherREGEN improves the sonics of an MA3. According to Mike, "Cleaner, tighter music, Not messy or muffled. Better separation of instruments. It made me want to hear more of the music. Though it does not matter with every track. But when it does make a difference, it makes a huge difference." I would agree with that 100%. Though I do have to qualify that conclusion, as the test setup from yesterday was not identical to our test setup from my first post above. Everything was the same except that a week or so before this second listening session I inserted three Symposium Rollerblock Jr's under the MA3 (supporting the unit, lifting the stock feet off the shelf), and later swapped the Rollerblock Jr's stock balls with Symposium's Grade 10 Tungsten Carbide balls. When made the Rollerblocks were added, the sonic improvement was immediately audible. And then when I upgraded them with the Tungsten balls, that too was an immediately audible improvement. So, would the addition of the Rollerblocks influenced either of these two tests? IMO - maybe. The Rollerblock addition, and then the Tungsten ball addition, both increased the clarity and resolution - particularly imaging - of the MA3's output. Maybe if that additional clarity had been present in the first test, it might have altered the initial conclusion that the OCXO attached to the eR did not improve the output of the MA3. We can't know. So I'll modify my above conclusion above to the following. On the best recordings, a quality external OCXO clock - that has had weeks to settle - when connected to an EtherREGEN improves the sonics from an MA3 resting on three Symposium Rollerblock Jr's with Grade 10 Tungsten Carbide balls. PS - In the interest of full-disclosure, I have to acknowledge that for the first tests in my OP, I was running one version of Roon on my Roon core, and on the second test yesterday that Roon core software was a subsequent version. I honestly don't think it made a whit of difference to sonics, but that's for the reader to decide.

Well, the jury is still out on the AfterDark clock. Haven't A/B'ed that again yet. Will report when I do. As to the other two conclusions... I scheduled the A/B'ing with Mike as soon as I determined that I could not hear the difference between the MA3 with the eR, or without it. But he was unable to come by for almost a month. In that time I did as Alex suggested and just listened to the MA3 for a few weeks, and then put the eR back. By that time my ears had grown more accustomed to its sound, and could tell that things were a bit more musical (for lack of a better word) with the eR. But not by much. In that same time-frame I installed the upstream fiber, and could tell that was better too. But again, not by a lot. So in a nutshell, it pretty much comes down to this, for me... The etherREGEN in front of my old Mytek Brooklyn Bridge made a profound - impossible to miss - improvement in sonics. But doing the same thing with the MA3, you have to listen real hard to hear a difference. So whatever the MA3 is doing, it is certainly doing something significant.

The point of the exercise - which I should have clarified - was to discern the degree to which Meitner Audio’s design efforts negate all the trouble we go to to clean up our digital signals. CLEARLY the benefits of other clean-up efforts remain (EtherREGEN, fiber, OCXO clocks for eR), but their value is diminished as the MA3 is bringing so much “clean up” value to the game. If every DAC could do this, there’d be no pressing need for all the products we employ to clean up our digital signals.

I had an etherREGEN connected via B-side to a Mytek Brooklyn Bridge DAC for many months. The improvement the eR made to it was quite dramatic. And I saw even more improvements when I attached one on AfterDark's external OCXO clocks to the eR. But that was before I replaced my Brooklyn Bridge with a Meitner Audio MA3. Recent review here. Needless to say, the MA3 blows the Brooklyn Bridge away in terms of performance. But that's not why I'm posting. I'm posting because I was a bit surprised to find that once I put the MA3 into my system (no changes except DACs) I found that I no longer needed the etherREGEN. As far as I could tell, it was no longer making any improvements, as if everything the eR did is built into the MA3. I contacted Alex Crispi, who suggested that I give it some time to allow my ears to become more attuned to the new DAC's sound. So I listened for a few weeks with no eR, and then put it back. And I thought it might, just might, be providing a small improvement. But I was not sure. So I called a buddy of mine - the only true golden ear I've ever known, to get him to listen. This post is the result of that listening session, as documented between the equals bars (===) below. We did several tests, while we were at it. =========================================================================================== PREAMBLE There is a Closing section at the bottom of this write up. If details of the test are not required to provide confidence-in/understanding-of the tests, then just jump to the Closing at the bottom for the test conclusions. GOLDEN EAR INTRODUCTION My golden ear buddy - we'll just call him Mike - is someone I turn to when I am making changes to my audio gear, and am not sure if I'm influencing myself by expectation bias. I can never pull off a double blind A/B test with him, but I'd like to think that I've gotten pretty good with single blind tests. And often I don't tell him anything about what he's listening for, making for an even better test. And all of his passionate pursuits of home and mobile audio are limited to headphones connected to a phone with a dongle DAC. That's it. So he does not really understand what I'm doing if the test requires swapping cables around. I use him because his hearing is exquisitely acute. I attribute it to his lifelong passion for live music, which has had him attending live performances typically a few times a month, for three or four decades. When we A/B test, he typically can pick out a superior sound within a few bars of the first B track. I've seen him pick A over B (or vice versa) in as few as 3 or 4 notes. His hearing is that good. TEST BACKGROUND My previous DAC was a Mytek Brooklyn Bridge. It took its signals from Roon over a CAT6 cable. No WiFi anywhere in the audio chain. The sonic performance of the old DAC was greatly improved when I added an UpTone Audio etherREGEN network switch. Then it was further improved when I added an AfterDark external OCXO clock for the etherREGEN to use instead of its own clock. I recently purchased a Meitner Audio MA3 DAC, and was so blown away by the sonic improvements, I decided to swap the etherREGEN (and by implication, the OCXO clock) out for a well regarded - but quite cheap - SoHo 5-port router. It still sounded fantastic. I could not hear a difference, thus strongly suspected that the proprietary digital audio features (primarily jitter reducing) built into the MA3 (MFAST™, MCLK2™, MDAT2™ DSP, and MCLK™) might be doing everything the etherREGEN and clock were doing, making them redundant. So I lined up a few listening sessions for Mike, so that I could know for sure. Before the test, after having plugged the etherREGEN back in (but not the OCXO), it was suggested that I try using single mode fiber and a quality FMC as my etherREGEN's upstream connection to the network, which I did. I have lots of observations about the impacts of adding that fiber, and from switching back to the etherREGEN after a week of listening to the new MA3 DAC over the cheap router. But I'll save those for other communications, as this is dedicated to observations from Mike alone. Having disconnected my OCXO clock several weeks prior, one week before the test, I plugged the external clock into a quality power supply to warm up. Two hours before the test - without unplugging it - I moved the clock to a position where it could be used in the test. It is worth noting that after hooking the clock up to the etherREGEN, and flipping the switch on the back of the etherREGEN to make it use the external clock, and waiting a couple of minutes to let it all settle, the switch was non-functional. Apparently moving the OCXO significantly "upset" the clock, even though it never lost power. Ten minutes later though, it was functioning. Two hours after that it was used for the test. TEST PROTOCOL The tests were set up as a single blind, with Mike not knowing what we were testing other than three sets of A/B comparisons. He was told he was listening to hear which sounded better to him, A or B. I was to switch back and forth between A and B as often as he wished. An iPad with the Roon remote app running allowed him to queue all the music himself from Roon, using a Tidal playlist with music of his own choosing. It was a variety, but contained no orchestral, and little jazz. There were times in the test though, when I queued up a well recorded acoustic jazz track or two after Mike had reached a firm conclusion about that particular comparison. In each case Mike stated that the changes he had previously identified were even more evident with my selected jazz tracks. For every comparison the MA3 was used as the system's DAC. It never changed. Though Mike did not know it, we tested for three things. The sonic value of using the AfterDark OCXO clock with the etherREGEN Then, the winner of that first comparison was played both with - and without - the upstream fiber network connection (vs. copper). The copper wire connected etherREGEN alone (no external OCXO clock) was compared to an inexpensive, but well regarded, SoHo Ethernet switch. Mike could not see the changes I was making to connections, as they were all either in, or behind, the stand. THE TESTS TEST ONE: Fiber connection to etherREGEN using external OCXO compared to the same setup without the external clock. Switching from A to B was as simple as momentarily unplugging the DC power from the etherREGEN, toggling the etherREGEN's internal/external clock switch, and plugging the DC power back into the etherREGEN, then waiting 60 seconds for it to reboot and stabilize. Conclusion: Per Mike the fiber connected etherREGEN without the external clock sounded better. More richness to the sound, and the sound stage collapsed when the external OCXO clock was used. Mike had to listen to 20-30 seconds of several tracks in both A and B a few times, before he was certain. But once he knew what he was listening for, he could hear it within seconds of switching from A to B. He called it "not subtle". Remarks: IMO it has to be acknowledged that the poor performance of the etherREGEN with the external clock could be due to the clock being moved so recently before the test. This test will have to be revisited after the clock has been properly installed and and had a few weeks to settle. TEST TWO: Fiber upstream connection from the router to the etherREGEN vs. a CAT8 copper connection between those two devices. The fiber was Corning ClearCurve LC-LC duplex 9/125µm single mode fiber optic patch cable. The pair of FMC's were single-mode 1310nm SFP modules, both StarTech SFPGLCLHSMST, one SFC inserted in the SFC slot in the etherREGEN, and the other end plugged into a Small Green Computer 1 Gb FMC, which was connected to the upstream network via CAT8 Wireworld Starlight 8 patch cable. Switching from A to B was merely unplugging the switch's CAT8 upstream network connection and plugging it into the B side of the etherREGEN, and vice versa. The fiber optic patch cable was never unplugged, though it was not not functional in the B mode listening tests. Conclusion: This decision flip flopped, but wound up being certain after additional listening. Initially Mike thought the B setup (copper) sounded smoother, and that A (fiber) was a little shrill. But he was uncertain - wanted to listen further. He knew he had made a very quick observation. After further listening Mike firmly concluded that what he was hearing with A was - in fact - just better clarity - which in some passages (like trumpets) can sound shrill, but in fact sounded quite realistic. That conclusion of better realism for the A configuration was confirmed across all music played. Remarks: This lines up with the occasional on-line mention of the MA3 DAC being bright. It seems to indicate that what appears bright may just be increased musical fidelity. TEST THREE: etherREGEN connected to the network via Wireworld Starlight 8 CAT8 wire vs. a Netgear GS105 unmanaged network switch connected the same way, with both switches powered by an UpTone Audio JS-2 LPS. On the GS105 John Swenson's admonition to keep an open port between any two used ports was observed. Switching from A to B was as simple as unplugging all the CAT8 cables from one switch and plugging them into the other. Both switches remained powered up the entire time, and were at no time powered down. Conclusion: Another decision flip flop. Initial impressions were that the B setup had a better sound stage, but after additional listening concluded that the A setup was both more musical and more realistic. Remarks: Additional listening - that reversed the early preference for the B setup - was not prompted by me. It appeared that Mike was unsure of his conclusion, and wanted to hear more. But once he heard more, his preference for A became clear. CLOSING It is worth noting that all three of these comparisons took quite a few minutes listening, and multiple sets of A/B comparisons, for Mike to reach a firm conclusion. That is quite different from his typical abilities to rapidly hear differences between setups. So when he may have described some changes as "not subtle", IMO it's clear to me that to the casual listener they would be quite subtle. IMO if Mike could not hear it quickly, it was not easy to hear. Likewise in two of the comparisons Mike made some snap judgements that he eventually reversed. This - IMO - is just more evidence that to the casual listener these differences would be subtle indeed. When connected to the Meitner Audio MA3 DAC via copper Ethernet cable, the etherREGEN sounded more musical and realistic than a well regarded SoHo unmanaged switch, when both were powered the same quality LPS. Further improvements in clarity were possible when the etherREGEN's upstream Cat8 network connection was replaced with a quality single mode fiber connection. And finally, adding an AfterDark OCXO external clock to the setup reduced the audio quality, collapsing the sound stage. That final observation may not be accurate due to handling of the clock so soon before testing, and will require additional testing after the clock has had much longer time to settle. The subtlety of these differences when playing Roon streamed music through the Meitner MA3 DAC vs. the immediately audible sonic improvements that I heard when I first added an etherREGEN to this same setup (except that it was using a Mytek Brooklyn Bridge as the DAC) appears to imply two things. First, that the MA3 is bringing many sonic benefits to my system's sound that previously had required an etherREGEN to achieve. Second, that the etherREGEN - and also a fiber upstream connection - both still impart additional audible benefits when an MA3 is the DAC - vs. a Brooklyn Bridge - but the improvements are far more subtle. =========================================================================================== I'll re-do the AfterDark OCXO test soon. It's been plugged in an settling for weeks. Sorry for the long post. But I hope it was of interest.

@MartinT - Great suggestion. Thank you! How warm does it run? I could use one, but in a location that is not extremely well ventilated, unfortunately. So need something that runs not too warm. Thanks.

Great post. Thank you. Our listening impressions differ, but IMO your well considered dissenting short term evaluations are an important data point to our discussions here. Thank you for that. But, I would ask, is this an apples to apples comparison? What exactly has changed from your current configuration from your prior? And if - as it appears to be - more than just interjecting an ER into the chain - why do you feel the differences you are hearing should be attributed to the ER? Apologies if I’m not completely intuited the unmentioned changes you’ve made. I hope the ER’s potential sonic benefits improve for you. And thank you for your honest and factual post. :-)

PM sent. :-)

Fascinating stuff. Thanks for the clarification, and excellent links. @Summit So where does the phase inversion and signal summing come into play? I've got two three pin XLR connector cables (one per channel) between my DAC and my amp, and I thought that's what was going on. Is that not correct? Thanks.

No replies, but found my own answer. The reviewer was technically correct, but also appeared to not understand that it did not matter. The 4 pin XLR connection is not a true balanced connection, but it performs the same function. It's just not done the original 3 conductors per channel with signal processing way. Apparently this is a way that eliminates processing on either the sender or receiver's end. I don't pretend to understand it. And apparently calling it "balanced" is a bit of a misnomer, yet it still performs the same cable noise elimination function. Here's a link that describes it. So my takeaway is that vendors calling the 4XLR connections (as they appear to be called) "balanced" is not misleading. It's just avoiding confusion over it performing the same noise reduction function a different way. So call it balanced. Or not. You decide. In the end, the outcome is the same.

Apologies in advance for a long OP. But there are a lot of conflicting data points here, leading to some confusion (and ignorance) on my part that I'm hoping someone will be able to clear up. I’m no electrical engineer. But I think I understand the gist of balanced audio connections… sender sends recipient a signal (positive and negative/ground conductors) plus an inverted signal (3 conductors required now). Recipient overlays the signal with the inverted signal, and anything other than silence in the result is noise that was picked up by the cable in signal transit. Recipient inverts that noise signal and overlays it on the non-inverted signal, and thus any cable noise is stripped from the signal. Easy peasy. To my mind that’s three conductor per channel. For a pair of stereo headphones, that’s six conductors. So why do there appear to be two channel, single jack/plug, XLR headphone connections out there with only four conductors? I don't understand how that can be possible. My DAC is a Mytek Brooklyn Bridge. The documentation clearly states that it can accept balanced connections. That is typically done with XLR connections, but it only has two 1/4" headphone connections. But they address that limitation by selling this XLR to dual 1/4" adapter. But here’s the catch. That adapter has only one XLR plug, AND it’s only got four pins. Huh? And the plot thickens… I have a pair of Focal Stellia cans on order. They supply two cables. A short one (~1m) with your typical 3.5mm termination. But the other one is a long ~3m cable, a length more suitable for a balanced connection. And lo and behold, that cable is XLR terminated. But it is only one 4 pin XLR connector. With only four conductors, how can that be balanced? The same way Mytek is pulling it off? Whatever that is... To complicate matters, the Balanced Headphones Guide by Headphones.com clearly states that headphones (presumably two channel) can accomplish a balanced connection with only a single 4 pin XLR connection. But contradicting that, this Focal Stellia reviewer claims that the provided 4 pin XLR cable IS NOT balanced because it only has four pins. They both can't be right. And finally, a brief look at some premium headphone amplifiers clearly possess what appear to be single 4 pin XPR connections, presumably blanced. Some examples here, here, and here. Are these balanced? And if so, how? Thanks for the help. 🙂

Thank you for posting this. I tried one of the Fairview pads you provided the link to, and the increase in clarity and detail was immediately audible. In fact, I inserted the pad between the cable and the ER (MiniCircuits filter at OCXO end of the cable) and walked away from the hifi. I’d jostled my Emperor Signature clock a good bit, and wanted to give it time to settle. But around 15 minutes later, while in the next room, someone turned the stereo on, and continued the track I had been previously playing. Though in an adjacent room, the added clarity was quite audible. Unmistakable with anything including cymbals or high hats. Thank you for this excellent suggestion. Well worth the minor cost.