Computer Audio Asylum

Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies.

Return to Computer Audio Asylum

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

The DJM Electronics FOIL Ethernet Filters

66.85.148.53
Posted on August 24, 2015 at 18:00:35
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012

On Audiostream, ML says he will be getting samples of these.

Guess how they work?

"Unlike standard signal line filters, FOIL™ Ethernet Filters utilize a fiber optic isolation link (FOIL) to maintain 100dB shielding integrity. The filter converts ONLY Ethernet packets, so there is no passband and no transmission of unwanted signals."

Price $1000.

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: The DJM Electronics FOIL Ethernet Filters, posted on August 24, 2015 at 19:50:22
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46278
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since: February 2, 2002
 At that price it must contain some heavy weight gold "FOIL". ;-)

You might want a shielded room to go with that FOIL.


And a hat for extra isolation.






 

RE: The DJM Electronics FOIL Ethernet Filters, posted on August 25, 2015 at 08:47:06
Fitzcaraldo215
Audiophile

Posts: 1120
Location: Philadelphia
Joined: September 7, 2008
 I am a little mystified by all the concern about Ethernet noise in a typical computer audio setup. Mine is not unusual, I think: NAS - Ethernet - switch - Ethernet - PC - USB - DAC.

I do not have a problem understanding how analog noise can ride on the USB digital signal or USB power connections and potentially interfere with the conversion in the DAC to analog. The PC itself, mainly, and secondarily EMI/RFI absorbed in the USB wire in transit are the likely sources of this noise. How significant is it in real life? That probably depends on a lot of things, including the DAC's noise rejection ability.

The PC is a very noisy beast, as we know, although it should have an electrically grounded chassis and case. But, there are countless noisy circuits within it, some of which may inject noise into the USB output.

Simplistically, digital signal from the Ethernet input flows through countless memory buffers, busses and caches in the PC. The player software or other software in the PC may also process and modify the original signal bits in a desirable way during playback. So, noise that came in through the Ethernet port is not still riding on the bits that go out to the DAC, at least not directly. The PC itself is in many ways itself a filter for noise originating in the Ethernet transmission upstream.

The idea of this device (as well as Lavorgna's tirelessly argued thesis on pricey AQ Ethernet cables) is that somehow noise received via the Ethernet port is adding to or further polluting what goes on in the PC such that the indirect effect of that noise is audible even at the DAC, which has no direct contact itself with the Ethernet connection.

As always with computer audio stuff, I am sure there are and will be countless user subjective testimonials as to how greatly this device or other filters or glass fiber Ethernet affect the sound way out there at the DAC end of things. But, pardon me if I remain skeptical in the absence of better evidence to prove there is any sonic impact.





 

RE: The DJM Electronics FOIL Ethernet Filters, posted on August 25, 2015 at 09:21:25
Ryelands
Audiophile

Posts: 1867
Location: Scotland
Joined: January 9, 2009
 countless user subjective testimonials . . . I remain skeptical in the absence of better evidence to prove there is any sonic impact.

The only evidence you can possibly have about "sonic impact" is, by definition, subjective. There are no meters in one's head.

The only alternative is some form of proxy measurement, the snag with that being that the onus is on its advocates to demonstrate that it correlates with perceptual reality. Typically, it is just assumed. Obviously, there is a correlation between pertinent electrical parameters and subjective experience but establishing the how and the what and the why of that is a deal less trivial than many suggest.

That said, there's little mystery about the potential for the likes of data transmission over a LAN to disrupt a real-time signal.

 

RE: The DJM Electronics FOIL Ethernet Filters, posted on August 25, 2015 at 09:34:51
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
 Conceptually, you make some decent points, but as Lavorgna titles the piece, Proof of Concept, even he realizes there is no universal agreement on Ethernet noise etc.

So there are many things we do not understand, and the process of elimination is not a bad thing.

I believe Ethernet is a very good audio transmission system, but like anything else it is not perfect, and may be subject to environmental performance issues. Meaning the same gear set up in two different domiciles may sound different, taking the room out of the equation of course, simply due to power lines, other household electronics, etc.

Now I agree that Lavorgna's love fest with the AQ ethernet cables was rather laughable given the total lack of comparisons, but I think he is generally on the up and up.

 

As laughable as the ensuiing hate fest..., posted on August 25, 2015 at 09:50:34
Michael Lavorgna
 ...imo, of course.

The "proof of concept" in the article title also comes into play because the DJM filters were not designed for home/audio use. The company "is one of the largest manufacturers and distributors of EMI filters, RF shielding products, RF absorber and shielding accessories in North America." If you look at their website, you'll see that they do not talk about consumer electronics at all.

The idea behind getting the GigaFOILv3 in-barn, it arrived the other day, is to see if it offers any improvement in a network audio system. If it does, DJM may design a device for home use which will be smaller and much less expensive. Of course I could have just said "this is all nonsense" and ignored the offer from DJM to try this device, but I'm curious.

As far as a "love fest" with the AQ Ethernet cables, I recommended the AQ Cinnamon when I first reviewed these cables 3 years ago. They bettered both a CAT 5 and CAT 6 cable I compared them to. I've since recommended buying good quality CAT 6 or CAT 7 shielded cables and the AQ cables are exactly that.

 

I remember you..., posted on August 25, 2015 at 09:55:57
Thorsten
Manufacturer

Posts: 4209
Location: Somewhere nice on planet dirt
Joined: September 25, 1999
 taking everyone to task over how silly USB tweaks costing tens or at best 100's of Dollars are and how superior Ethernet was for not needing any such tweaks...

Did I hear anyone say Pot?

Thor

At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to intolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?

 

RE: As laughable as the ensuiing hate fest..., posted on August 25, 2015 at 12:14:53
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
 Yes, I thought you made it very clear to anyone who took the time to read the post that the product you were being sent was not designed for home use, and quite frankly, was being done at as a favor by the manufacturer.

I for one am interested in your findings, regardless of whether they jive with my belief system

Sorry, it may be harsh, but in my humble opinion without comparing far less expensive, high grade CAT7 cables not marketed to audiophiles, the AQ ethernet cable write up was seriously flawed. I do appreciate you followed up, but I think a bit of homework should have been done prior.

Back to etherent...the fiber isolation solution in this product is quite interesting.

 

RE: I remember you..., posted on August 25, 2015 at 12:15:18
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
 You must be joking.

 

Kettle, posted on August 25, 2015 at 12:29:39
Thorsten
Manufacturer

Posts: 4209
Location: Somewhere nice on planet dirt
Joined: September 25, 1999
 > You must be joking.

Black...

Thor

At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to intolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?

 

Optoisolators, posted on August 25, 2015 at 13:12:46
Bromo33333
Audiophile

Posts: 3502
Location: Ipswich, MA
Joined: May 4, 2004
 They are describing an optoisolator.

$1000 is extremely steep, but if it is one, then it will work as advertised.

You can get one form the link below for $118-$237.


====
"You are precisely as big as what you love and precisely as small as what you allow to annoy you." ~ R A Wilson

 

RE: Optoisolators, posted on August 25, 2015 at 13:19:43
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
 Ok, I am getting too many responses from people have not read the lined article.

Michael clearly states the product he received is for industrial/enterprise use. The company asked him to test it out as they are thinking of developing a far less expensive product for consumer use.

In the comments section he notes the price point is a non starter, but that he has a different agenda.

 

Fiber?, posted on August 25, 2015 at 13:19:46
Bromo33333
Audiophile

Posts: 3502
Location: Ipswich, MA
Joined: May 4, 2004
 Might be, but if you really want good isolation, a decent optoisolator might be in order.

I would second the general consensus that a high quality shielded CAT-6a is in order. It should cost $10-20 depending upon length, but it always should be tested. And if that helps you out in sound quality (and it might), then you can either stay where you are and enjoy the better quality, oir you can then experiment with the things like AQ's offering and see where that might take you.

If it offends your sensibility to the point where you aren't willing to try the things out, then realize nobody is forcing you. But if you think you'd have to go out and buy the things, you can always rent them from "The Cable Company" and not have much of an outlay if you prefer actual empirical experience to conjecture.
====
"You are precisely as big as what you love and precisely as small as what you allow to annoy you." ~ R A Wilson

 

RE: Kettle, posted on August 25, 2015 at 13:21:03
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
 I sense serious ethernet envy. Since for under a $100 you get can maximize your performance. Stop swimming upstream. How about an iFi ePurifier? LOL.

 

RE: Kettle, posted on August 25, 2015 at 13:25:42
Cut-Throat
Audiophile

Posts: 18284
Location: Minneapolis - St.Paul Area
Joined: September 2, 2000
Contributor
  Since: May 16, 2021
 He's a 'piece of work'.....



 

Empirical vs. Conjecture, posted on August 25, 2015 at 13:26:16
Bromo33333
Audiophile

Posts: 3502
Location: Ipswich, MA
Joined: May 4, 2004
 Funny thing is a lot of these tweaky things surrounding optical isolation, shielding, etc. are solutions to specific problems, not panaceas.

The reason some find a great deal of improvement, and don't at all, isn't necessarily because of the goodness or badness of any one item, but the applicability of the thing you are buying to the problem at hand.

FOr instance, if you have crummy ethernet cables, and have problems with dropouts, then a quality ethernet cable might improve everything about that setup. But if someone already is using a quality ethernet cable, then the replacement might not do too much.

Same for vibration control devices, shielded power cords, filtered power strips, shielded analog cables, etc. If you have a problem that can be handled by those things, you are in luck - grab one and try it out.

It also behooves you that if you know you have a particular problem, to look for a non audiophile solution first, as they tend to be much cheaper, THEN try out the audiophile solution if you are so inclined.


====
"You are precisely as big as what you love and precisely as small as what you allow to annoy you." ~ R A Wilson

 

RE: "he notes the price point is a non starter", posted on August 25, 2015 at 15:14:49
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001

$1000 is a nonstarter for an AUDIOPHILE?

After reviewing AudioQuest's Ethernet cable?

Device Type: Ethernet Cable
Availability: Online and Through Authorized Dealers
Price: Vodka $339/1.5m, Diamond $1,195/1.5m




First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

It's not pretty enough., posted on August 25, 2015 at 15:35:24
Bromo33333
Audiophile

Posts: 3502
Location: Ipswich, MA
Joined: May 4, 2004
 But it would be "consumer" not "Audiophile" :-D
====
"You are precisely as big as what you love and precisely as small as what you allow to annoy you." ~ R A Wilson

 

RE: "he notes the price point is a non starter", posted on August 25, 2015 at 16:29:03
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
 You are taking the most insane product category in this industry..cables..where pricing is arbitrary and pseudo scientific claims are a dime a dozen.

Exposing the ugly truth, that a good percentage of "audiophile" cables are bulk made in china and outfitted with fancy jackets would upset the apple cart.

 

RE: It's not pretty enough., posted on August 25, 2015 at 17:00:50
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001

Link below:




First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

How does a shielded Ethernet cable help with isolation?, posted on August 25, 2015 at 17:50:07
Dave_K
 If anything, it introduces the possibility of galvanically coupling two devices which otherwise would have been galvanically isolated.

 

RE: Kettle, posted on August 25, 2015 at 18:01:13
Thorsten
Manufacturer

Posts: 4209
Location: Somewhere nice on planet dirt
Joined: September 25, 1999
 Hi,

> I sense serious ethernet envy.

Not at all. I nowadays mostly stream via 5G .11n, just imagine "look mama - no wires". Of course you still get to tweak on the router side as well as elsewhere .Of course the network cable to the router is already optical fibre, but I am sure we can come up with a tweak for that too.

> Stop swimming upstream. How about an iFi ePurifier?

Sure, let me look into this again. Last time we decided the market was not there...

Thor

At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to intolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?

 

RE: Kettle, posted on August 25, 2015 at 18:12:48
Sprezza Tura
Audiophile

Posts: 4585
Location: New York City
Joined: August 24, 2012
 All joking aside, I like iFi products. I just set up the iDSD w/iUSB in conjunction with the SOtM sMS-100 ethernet streamer. A $1000 front that is blowing my friends minds.

I may try the iPurifier and and the Jitterbug.

Are you at liberty to give us a flash update on the Pro iDSD?

 

Seems to be only a problem with Rosewill CAT 7, for example.., posted on August 25, 2015 at 18:25:09
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001



As that's the only ethernet cable I've found that has the shield/drain wire attached to the metal shield on the RJ45-like plugs at both ends.




First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

RE: Seems to be only a problem with Rosewill CAT 7, for example.., posted on August 25, 2015 at 18:44:30
Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 2912
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006
 "As that's the only ethernet cable I've found that has the shield/drain wire attached to the metal shield on the RJ45-like plugs at both ends."

I cringe to ask...how are other companies terminating the shield? Hopefully not just left floating....

 

Well, as Cat 7 is the only one that actually specifies a shield..., posted on August 25, 2015 at 19:27:54
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001
 and it's almost not a real specification as of yet, it may be a moot point.

BUT, most cables have a shield running the full length of the cable terminated at either end in NOTHING.

And it hardly matters as none of my ethernet hubs seem to have grounded sockets.


First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

RE: Well, as Cat 7 is the only one that actually specifies a shield..., posted on August 25, 2015 at 20:31:36
Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 2912
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006
 What would be cool is if there was a shielded e-cable that had pigtail terminations on the ends of the shields to something like ring terminals (or whatever), and not make ground contact through a metallic jack. Give those inclined to mess with it the flexibility to try different stuff to solve their problems.

 

Sprezza Tura, this is not a shot at you, posted on August 26, 2015 at 00:29:53
Jaundiced Ear
 but let's all bow our heads down for a minute while we think what Chris goes through trying to moderate a thread like this.

JE

 

RE: Well, as Cat 7 is the only one that actually specifies a shield..., posted on August 26, 2015 at 07:36:40
Dave_K
 I've only seen shielded cable specified for runs in industrial environments. This is shielded Cat 6 or Cat 6a. The bulk cable comes with a drain wire, so theoretically you could terminate it with an unshielded plug and run the drain wire to a dedicated grounding point, but it wasn't designed to be used in that way. It's designed to be used with shielded plugs and shielded jacks on both ends for maximum effectiveness. The equipment at both ends should be properly bonded for safety.

If the shield is left floating at one or both ends, it will still provide some degree of RFI rejection, but not much protection from low frequency magnetic fields.

 

RE: Well, as Cat 7 is the only one that actually specifies a shield..., posted on August 26, 2015 at 10:02:07
Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 2912
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006
 Safety bonding per local codes should never be compromised.

It's true maximum shielding effectiveness requires bonding at both ends. Though, sometimes that arrangement will not prove to be the lowest noise performance achievable depending on the ambient EM environment and the system under consideration.

Circuit loops cause unwanted EMI noise current to flow through the loop whenever ambient background fields are nonzero. Whatever impedance this current flows through has an associated noise voltage.

Audible band EMI problems are a big deal in high gain systems trying to achieve 120dB plus dynamic range. PC's mixing with single ended audio gear seems like a twisted cruel joke from an EMI perspective.

It's possible a compromise in absolute maximum shielding effectiveness can be traded for an even lower effective noise floor elsewhere when dealing with problematic low frequency loop emi problems by replacing the DC ground at one end of the shield with a high pass filter. This allows safety bonding to be maintained per code, shielding to be used quite effectively though not at 100% theoretically best possible performance, and low frequency EMI problems filtered in high gain systems seeking to reject audible band emi problems.

The point is it might actually help somebody solve a real problem or at least a perceived one. Maybe there is a market for that kind of thing. Apparently people are buying cables with floating shields????? Why not this?

 

Um, no. One flavor of Cat-6a specifies a sheild., posted on August 26, 2015 at 13:54:06
Bromo33333
Audiophile

Posts: 3502
Location: Ipswich, MA
Joined: May 4, 2004
CAT-6a can be called out with a "STP" (Shielded Twisted Pair) and "UTP" (Unshielded Twisted Pair).

CAT-7 is automatically SSTP (Screened, Shielded, Twisted Pair)

The thing that is difficult is that CAT-7 specifies a end connector (GG45) that isn't used in things that are billed as CAT-7. In reality you have a CAT-6 cable, that might actually bet CAT-5 in performance (if you do not connect the shields in the connector, you will suffer bad crosstalk and the speeds may drop as low as Cat-5.

Right now, you are probably best ordering a CAT-6a STP if you want max benefits.
====
"You are precisely as big as what you love and precisely as small as what you allow to annoy you." ~ R A Wilson

 

RE: "CAT-7 is automatically SSTP (Screened, Shielded," Twisted Pair), posted on August 26, 2015 at 19:07:35
Ivan303
Audiophile

Posts: 48887
Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM
Joined: February 26, 2001

Exactly my point.

Most interesting point is the lower 'delay skew' in the cat 7 cable which I assume is a product of the lesser differences in the twist rate of the various pairs.

Might make decent speaker cable after all. ;-)





First they came for the dumb-asses
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a dumb-ass

 

RE: It's not pretty enough., posted on August 26, 2015 at 20:24:01
Bob_C
Audiophile

Posts: 2667
Location: NY
Joined: July 31, 2000
 And is the a point of linking to a pair of 300Bs?

 

Page processed in 0.038 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]