Taiko Audio SGM Extreme : the Crème de la Crème

[Kingsrule]

Because of the number of permutations involved I kept the streaming tracks used for the comparisons to a minimum in an attempt to keep the overall project manageable and importantly, to keep my sanity. Like any audiophile, I unavoidably end up listening to sound as much as music when doing comparisons — what improved, what didn’t improve? But my tolerance for this kind of listening is pretty low and I would much rather relax and just listen to music once a certain minimum acceptable sound quality is reached. Too much concentrated A/B/C testing and I start to lose the will to go on living.

The three streaming selections I used are:

1. Brenda Fricker, Anuna, Never Give All The Heart from The Chieftains "Tears Of Stone" 16/44.1 Qobuz stream

2. Brian Bromberg, The Saga Of Harrison Crabfeathers, "Wood" 16/44.1 Qobuz stream

3. Clifford Curzon, Benjamin Britten/LSO, Mozart Piano Concerto No. 20, Allegro 16/44.1 Tidal stream

With 2. and 3. I used two different sections in each track rather than playing the whole long track through each time. Each of these recordings have places where the digital transfer can sound anywhere from hot to irritatingly bright or hard if everything isn’t up to snuff in the digital path.

A word about what I listen for when doing this kind of test. I'm very sensitive to harshness, hardness and unnatural brightness. I listen for tonal balance and saturation, low-level detail, depth, width and height (particularly depth), and dynamic swing. And generally, I also try to listen for an undefined overall *enjoyability* -- would I be happy listening to my system sounding like this for hours, or would I be unsatisfied and restless?

I've found that for whatever reason, a recording on the edge of being hard or harsh sounding will be tipped over that edge and become hard to listen to by less than excellent digital performance. Sibilant sounds, cymbals, and other high frequency instruments can quickly go from brilliant to bright to hot. As the top end hardens and higher frequencies become more prominent everything seems to flatten out. My test recordings tend to emphasize this in places and so represent a worst case scenario. There is still lots of music that will sound fantastic with any of these configurations though.

So, without further ado --

First off, my feeling is these LAN optimizations are audible and are worth pursuing, particularly since other than the power supplies and one of the devices under test (ER), they are fairly inexpensive in the audiophile scheme of things. However, I am also in general agreement with other Extreme owners that the largest benefits are gained from premium power cords, USB cables, and vibration control. Network optimization is an order of magnitude lower in effect than power, USB and vibration.

As a general conclusion, in all cases I preferred using the Planet Tech 1310nm 20km SFPs over the Startech 1550nm 80km SFPs. This was regardless of device (ER, FMC or OM) and regardless of attenuation used or no attenuation at all. In fact, in some circumstances the choice of SFP made a bigger delta than choice of device (ER, FMC or OM). Likewise, I found I always thought using -10dB attenuators on the receiver ports of the Startech SFPs to be a necessity, or they sounded edgy with any of the devices.

The most cost effective and must-do item from all my experimenting is replacing any Startech SFPs with Planet Tech SFPs. The Planet Tech SFPs made every device (OM, ER, FMC) sound better in my system. At $23.90 USD the Planet Tech SFPs are a bargain.

Specific device results --

Any of the combinations, even the nominally last ranked, are still much better than the 50 feet of copper ethernet I originally used between LAN and server. Also, moving my feed to the Extreme all the way upstream to an ethernet port on my DSL modem and having everything else in my LAN downstream on the other side of a WiFi router fed from the modem's WAN port, was as large a positive improvement as choice of device.

1. Last place, but still very honorable mention:

The combination of Startech FMC/Startech SFP is one I lived with even before I took delivery of the Extreme. It was a large improvement over a long run of copper ethernet from LAN to server. I did find -10dB attenuators on the receiver ports tamed some brightness which might have been caused by overdriving the SFP receivers with the powerful 1550nm lasers over a very short fiber link.

The Startech FMC can sound very good, but there is better out there and it came in last of the three devices I tested. A Startech FMC with Planet Tech SFP and no attenuators sounds better to me than the all-Startech combination of FMC and SFP.

However, the Startech FMC configurations sound, as someone else on one of the Internet forums observed, somewhat mechanical in nature compared to better combinations.

2. Good, and Better:

EtherRegen (ER) "B" to "A"/Startech SFP/-10dB attenuators, and Planet Tech SFP/no attenuation --

The ER "B" to "A" across-the-moat configuration is less mechanical or electronic sounding than the Startech FMC combos. It also nicely ameliorates any tendency of edgy digital transfers to tip over into brightness or harshness. However, with the Extreme it sounds too polite and sounds smaller and less energetic than any other combination. The Planet Tech SFP helped with the clarity but didn’t cure the small stage size and lack of dynamics.

3. Better, and tied for Best:

ER "A" to "A"/Startech SFP/-10dB attenuator, and Planet Tech SFP/no attenuation --

ER in the "A" to "A" configuration brought back a good part of the dynamics and life and scale of music. The Planet Tech SFP sounded a little softer than the Startech SFP, but in either case the "A" to "A" ER brought back some of the edginess too. This was slight however, and for a person who needs a switch rather than an FMC, the ER is a cost and sound-quality effective choice. And, from the preponderance of reports, if a non-Extreme owner can use it in an "A" to "B" configuration, it might be the best sounding option of all.

4. Best in my situation:

Optical Module/Startech SFP/-10dB attenuator, and OM/Planet Tech SFP/no attenuation --

The OM is perhaps the most transparent to, or maybe I should say the most dependent on the SFP it is paired with. With the Startech SFP even using attenuation, the OM can still be a little edgy. But it sounds big and bold and full of life, if just that little bit hard on top with less favored digital transfers. As a result, it sometimes sounds a little flat and a little forward when challenged with brighter recordings.

Paired with the Planet Tech SFP and without any attenuation, the OM retains all of the life and dynamics of music without any objectionable hardness on top, and with a subjective sense of more depth, dimension and space. It doesn't hide what recordings are, but it doesn't exacerbate their imperfections either. To my way of hearing, it strikes just the right balance in the context of my system and my tastes. I had one of those, “Ahhhhh, this is good!” moments when I started listening to the OM/Planet Tech SFP combination.


I wound up my tests by comparing streamed tracks to their twins residing in local on-board storage, and also tested the claim that with the Extreme and an optimized network, high-resolution (24/96, 24/192) streamed music can beat standard Redbook resolution (16/44.1) stored on-board the Extreme.

Listening to the same resolution streamed, compared to local playback, I thought local playback to be a bit better -- a little cleaner, a little darker and a little more depth. But it is very close and streaming certainly doesn't suffer for the comparison. I can listen to music via the Extreme and Roon Radio streaming all day long and never get tired or restless. Every so often a poorly recorded or digitally transferred track will come up, but that can happen regardless of medium.

Streaming higher resolution tracks and comparing them to their standard resolution, locally stored counterparts proved a little trickier. It's difficult to determine in many cases whether the mix was also tweaked when the source recording was remastered to higher resolution; in the case of MQA high resolution, MQA processing may be affecting the recording in ways that are sometimes enhancing and sometimes detracting (in my experience). However, over a dozen or so non-MQA high resolution Qobuz selections I found that in the majority of cases I did indeed prefer the high-res streamed version over standard resolution locally stored content.

Once again I'll just say that all of this is very much in the context of my own system, LAN and taste in music and musical presentation. And it appears that for whatever the reason, with an Extreme in the mix some of the unique attributes of the EtherRegen don't come out in the same way they do with other servers. The EtherRegen would be my first choice if I needed a switch in the feed to my Extreme because it is still better sounding than a Startech FMC, or a TLS OXCO switch. However for my needs and for what I value in sonic presentation the Optical Module with Planet Tech SFP has just the right balance.

Hopefully this was helpful, or at least interesting and worth the time spent reading.

I hope everyone is well and taking care of their loved ones in this challenging time.

Steve Z

Great write up...and good call on the Planet Tech SFP's. I've been using them for awhile and totally agree on how they sound vs. other SFP's. I also never liked the attenuators....

 

[Taiko Audio]

@oldmustang thank you for sharing.

As far as I've kept track, from e-mail feedback and this thread, I'm counting 7 in favour of Planet Tech and 2 in favour of Startech. Statistically it seems to be a winner!

@dminches Naturally we're not twiddling our thumbs, we are researching some very exciting new technologies on multiple fronts, but this will all take quite some time to come to fruition!

 

[kennyb123]

Excellent write-up @oldmustang! My findings differed only with respect to the ER as it clearly did more good than harm, but I’m sure I’d hear it the same way with had I owned an Extreme. As far as the OM and Planet Tech SFP’s, I’m in 100% agreement on your findings.

Like you, I first moved to fiber using the Startech SFPs. While it was a noticeable improvement over copper, I struggled with varying degrees of harshness. Adding attenuators stripped away some harshness but also caused a backwards step in clarity. Swapping in the Planet Tech SFPs brought a big improvement but still left me unsettled at times. That went away once I replaced the Startech FMC with the OM. My enjoyment of the music has been off the charts since then as it seems my network no longer seems to be calling attention to itself.

 

[RichardA]

Is there any model number or possibly a link on those Planet Tech SFP's ?

Thank you

 

[kennyb123]

Is there any model number or possibly a link on those Planet Tech SFP's ?

Thank you

https://planetechusa.com/product/mgb-tlx-mini-gbic-lx-module-20km/

 

[dctom]

https://planetechusa.com/product/mgb-tlx-mini-gbic-lx-module-20km/

not having any optical fibre experience can anyone tell me how I could implement these SFPs with my etherRegen?

 

[octaviars]

not having any optical fibre experience can anyone tell me how I could implement these SFPs with my etherRegen?

I use a Ubiquiti Edgerouter X SFP to run fiber directly to my etherREGEN. One SPF module in router and one in etherREGEN and a short fiberoptic cable between them.
The modules I use is LX 1310nm 10Km single-mode and the cable is from Corning a Clear curve.

 

[kennyb123]

not having any optical fibre experience can anyone tell me how I could implement these SFPs with my etherRegen?

You essentially want to get to this:

copper > FMC > fiber > FMC > copper

The downstream FMC can be your ER.

The Sonore opticalModule would be an excellent upstream FMC.

(A fiber media converter - FMC - simply converts fiber to copper in the example above. The ER includes this functionality).

You need a pair of matching SFPs, one for each FMC. Just push them all the way in.

The following is the fiber I use. Order this in the length you require.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0099S4UTQ?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_share

 

[sbo6]

maybe.......and maybe not.

my guess is that the more a competitor investigates the Extreme, the less likely they would commit the resources to attempt to beat it at it's own game. meaning to try and go head to head on the build and hardware side. it would be a large risk. i could see maybe attempts to end run the Extreme with software in some way. note i use the word attempts. and, of course, the Extreme can move forward with software too.

i do agree that perfect is not the right word. a better way to put it might be 'pre-optimized'. you can't blame computer audio tweakers for assuming they can improve anything they see. it's inherent in the species. and computer audio has reinvented itself every 6 months for a decade, so it's assumed that is still the case. only time will tell.

Nothing is perfect. And further refinements will come or they will inevitably go out of business.

High end computer audio is in its infancy. Designers are capitalizing on low hanging fruit. Why do you think companies are churning out further tweaked boxes every year or so? Expect trickle down for better price / performance and expect further optimizations on the high end. Talk to me in 5 years about what new expensive box you bought that trumps this one. I bet it sounds great but perfect - not even close...

 

[kennyb123]

High end computer audio is in its infancy. Designers are capitalizing on low hanging fruit. Why do you think companies are churning out further tweaked boxes every year or so? Expect trickle down for better price / performance and expect further optimizations on the high end. Talk to me in 5 years about what new expensive box you bought that trumps this one. I bet it sounds great but perfect - not even close...

Computer audio - particularly servers, switches, etc - are in the growth phase now. Contrast that with say turntables, which have reached maturity/stabilization. A better comparison might be to the PC market back in the 90s. Many of us were upgrading our computers regularly because things were advancing so fast. Come to think of it, I've been on a similar pace with music servers.

 

[dctom]

You essentially want to get to this:

copper > FMC > fiber > FMC > copper

The downstream FMC can be your ER.

The Sonore opticalModule would be an excellent upstream FMC.

(A fiber media converter - FMC - simply converts fiber to copper in the example above. The ER includes this functionality).

You need a pair of matching SFPs, one for each FMC. Just push them all the way in.

The following is the fiber I use. Order this in the length you require.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0099S4UTQ?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_share

Thank you for the replies.
Will the planet tech SFPs mentioned earlier fit the ER and sonor FMC

 

[Superdad]

Thank you for the replies.
Will the planet tech SFPs mentioned earlier fit the ER and sonor FMC

Yes they will. Just be sure to use single-mode fiber optic cable with those single-mode PlanetTech SFP transceivers.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

it's about that time again......

about a year ago i received my Extreme, and invested in upgrading my network. i added the MSB Pro USB, added the fiber optic and all the acronym stuff. i basically did exactly what Emile suggested. the good news about that, is how reasonable in cost improving my network was. but the bad news is that this new stuff is too techie for me to follow and be able to understand where this or that 'latest and greatest' piece fits? which would move me forward...now?

is it time to upgrade my network where it would be worth my time to do it? or should i just listen and enjoy and give it another 6 months to sort out the winners and losers?

i figure once a year i will think about my network and make sure it's optimal. the rest of the time i will let all you folks that get off on those details to have your fun with it. i do like to tinker and tweak, just not in things digital.

 

[nenon]

it's about that time again......

about a year ago i received my Extreme, and invested in upgrading my network. i added the MSB Pro USB, added the fiber optic and all the acronym stuff. i basically did exactly what Emile suggested. the good news about that, is how reasonable in cost improving my network was. but the bad news is that this new stuff is too techie for me to follow and be able to understand where this or that 'latest and greatest' piece fits? which would move me forward...now?

is it time to upgrade my network where it would be worth my time to do it? or should i just listen and enjoy and give it another 6 months to sort out the winners and losers?

i figure once a year i will think about my network and make sure it's optimal. the rest of the time i will let all you folks that get off on those details to have your fun with it. i do like to tinker and tweak, just not in things digital.

What does you network look like, Mike? What kind of Internet do you have? And what devices, cables, power supplies, etc. do you have between your Internet handoff and the Extreme?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

What does you network look like, Mike? What kind of Internet do you have? And what devices, cables, power supplies, etc. do you have between your Internet handoff and the Extreme?

Emile knows exactly; i'm at work so later i will try and list it. it is described in this thread from last May or June.

 

[sbo6]

I would wait as you suggested rather than chase the latest golden tweak. As much as I tweak and upgrade (and I have a tech background) it's a PITA and eats at the fun of it all. IMO, give it a year and see what the new shiny better objects are available.

 

[Steve williams]

what inadequacies do you think your network has Mike?

im betting it sounds fantastic Mike and you don’t need to go down the rabbit hole.

I have had countless people in this thread telling me what I need to change in my network and TBH sonically I just don’t feel the need. All these things do is tune your system and I’m betting that what you have already done is unbeatable

 

[Mike Lavigne]

what inadequacies do you think your network has Mike?

im betting it sounds fantastic Mike and you don’t need to go down the rabbit hole.

I have had countless people in this thread telling me what I need to change in my network and TBH sonically I just don’t feel the need. All these things do is tune your system and I’m betting that what you have already done is unbeatable

once a year, once a year, once a year.

i don't know, what i don't know.

it's not about 'good enough', or not 'needing to change'. my head is not in the sand. but i'll never be one of those who is trying to understand the little steps of digital network evolution. i will, OTOH, wet my finger, raise it, and see whether the breeze of change is strong enough to act.

these network changes are so easy and cheap....almost relatively free. if it's a clear step......once a year i will act. i do want better when i can get it.

i've invested in the best possible foundation for my digital, it deserves to be kept optimal.

 

[Steve williams]

You’re talking in generalities. Where do you think your nework is lacking.

you’ve done all the things Emile suggests to optimize the Extreme. IMO these other things serve also to tune and optimize so I’m wondering if the net effect is different sound rather than better sound.
my mantra has always been “ an I hearing something better or merely something different and if it is better then how so”

im betting yours is killer as is Mike

 

[Mike Lavigne]

You’re talking in generalities. Where do you think your nework is lacking.

you’ve done all the things Emile suggests to optimize the Extreme. IMO these other things serve also to tune and optimize so I’m wondering if the net effect is different sound rather than better sound.
my mantra has always been “ an I hearing something better or merely something different and if it is better then how so”

im betting yours is killer as is Mike

did you even read my post?