The Ethernet cables, Switches and Network related sound thread. Share your listening experience only.

[Jake2]

Fiber has negative aspects as well. It is not a spread spectrum modulation like Wi-Fi or 3G and above, but a pulse modulation,. A noise coming out of power supply have strong peaks at certain frequencies, it is more disturbing for electronics than spread spectrum from WiFi.

This sounds very similar to Rob’s concern re fibre conversions.

Keeping your network chain as simple as possible is definitely the right direction to be heading in and avoiding fibre and other conversions is very good idea as these active processes generate and emit high-frequency interference picked up from their power supplies and internal powered processes.

Assuming there is HF interference generated by FMCs via their PS and maybe some localised radiated RFI, then the question would be how to best mitigate this to prevent it negatively affecting other components whilst still getting the benefit of their 100% galvanic isolation. Here’s a few ideas, incl some SA junky mentioned for wifi extenders that are relevant here too:

PS noise mitigants

• Linear PS (should reduce, if not fully mitigate, spikes and RF passing back to the mains circuit)
• Power conditioning on AC plug feeding FMC, preferably with a separate and high quality filtering circuit for each AC socket, prevent noise transferring between components eg. PSM156

Radiated RFI mitigants
Conservatively assuming there is some if comparatively low power vs a wifi router:

• Additional RF shielding of the FMC enclosure eg. Copper foil tape
• Chassis and/or signal grounding of the FMC incl any additional shielding
• Locating the receiving FMC further away from streamer… inverse square law means double the distance from say 1m to 2m as SAjunky suggests for a wifi extender, RFI intensity will be one over the square of the distance multiplier I.e. 1/2^2 = 1/4 (downside of this is a longer length of exposed ethernet cable… which could be shielded)

Ethernet cable borne HF noise/pulses of the receiving FMC

• Linear PS so no SMPS noise at least
• Chassis and/or signal grounding of FMC
• ethernet filter after the FMC (may include further galvanic isolation or noise cancellation depending on the design)

Looking at this list it’s quite long and a bit complicated. So I can see why Rob might suggest avoiding FMCs as being best for most people, especially if the quality of the final ethernet filter is sufficient to filter out the residual ethernet borne noise after a switch from an appropriately distant router.

 

[Jake2]

The counterpoint to the above is the many positive experiences of folk on the Gustard R26 thread who found insertion of FMCs significantly improved the sound vs straight from the wifi router, with often the only tweak from the above list being use of a linear PS at the receiving end. A relatively cheap and very effective isolation measure. I’ve only really read criticism of FMCs from folk with very refined, often expensive systems, and even then it is by exception.

 

[camrector]

This sounds very similar to Rob’s concern re fibre conversions.


Assuming there is HF interference generated by FMCs via their PS and maybe some localised radiated RFI, then the question would be how to best mitigate this to prevent them effecting other components whilst still getting the benefit of their 100% galvanic isolation. Here’s a few ideas, incl some SA junky mentioned for wifi extenders that are relevant here too:

PS noise mitigants

• Linear PS (should reduce, if not fully mitigate, spikes and RF passing back to the mains circuit)
• Power conditioning on AC plug feeding FMC, preferably with a separate and high quality filtering circuit for each AC socket, prevent noise transferring between components eg. PSM156

Radiated RFI mitigants
Conservatively assuming there is some if comparatively low power vs a wifi router:

• Additional RF shielding of the FMC enclosure eg. Copper foil tape
• Chassis and/or signal grounding of the FMC incl any additional shielding
• Locating the receiving FMC further away from streamer… inverse square law means double the distance from say 1m to 2m as SAjunky suggests for a wifi extender, RFI intensity will be one over the square of the distance multiplier I.e. 1/2^2 = 1/4 (downside of this is a longer length of exposed ethernet cable… which could be shielded)

Ethernet cable borne HF noise/pulses of the receiving FMC

• Linear PS so no SMPS noise at least
• Chassis and/or signal grounding of FMC
• ethernet filter after the FMC (may include further galvanic isolation or noise cancellation depending on the design)

Looking at this list it’s quite long and a bit complicated. So I can see why Rob might suggest avoiding FMCs as being best for most people, especially if the quality of the final ethernet filter is sufficient to filter out the residual ethernet borne noise after a switch from an appropriately distant router.

Yet 99.99% of people using FMCs notice a sq improvement.

Cheap clocks in cable modems, network routers, and Ethernet switches, are going to cause clock phase noise to the analog square wave voltages of the digital bitstream. The more of these devices in the configuration, the more the original signal is degraded.
Copper Ethernet cables are going to be way more susceptible to RF, EMI, low AND high-impedance leakage currents.

The cleanest power, least components, and most isolation(fiber) is going to give you the best networked audio.

 

[bpcans]

Yet 99.99% of people using FMCs notice a sq improvement.

Cheap clocks in cable modems, network routers, and Ethernet switches, are going to cause clock phase noise to the analog square wave voltages of the digital bitstream. The more of these devices in the configuration, the more the original signal is degraded.
Copper Ethernet cables are going to be way more susceptible to RF, EMI, low AND high-impedance leakage currents.

The cleanest power, least components, and most isolation(fiber) is going to give you the best networked audio.

The internet streaming monkey is subject to many variables that encompass not only the audio playback gear available, but also the condition of one’s brain , and how it was wired to enjoy listening to music.

First you need to start with the supposition that you’re using either speakers predominantly in a closed space or headphones, be it on the go or at home, if you have one. Or both hopefully.

I can’t reiterate enough that having clean power running through your mains is very important if you like to enjoy listening to music, or anything like a movie or videos, if you’re streaming vids and sound, hopefully synced, into your home, vehicle, or by the lake.

 

[Jake2]

Yet 99.99% of people using FMCs notice a sq improvement.

Cheap clocks in cable modems, network routers, and Ethernet switches, are going to cause clock phase noise to the analog square wave voltages of the digital bitstream. The more of these devices in the configuration, the more the original signal is degraded.
Copper Ethernet cables are going to be way more susceptible to RF, EMI, low AND high-impedance leakage currents.

The cleanest power, least components, and most isolation(fiber) is going to give you the best networked audio.

I agree with much of this, particularly re benefits of clean power and 100% galvanic isolation of FMCs bringing net positive benefits to most/many people as I said above re R26 owners.

Where I reckon it might be a bit less cut is the interaction of multiple network devices in a chain, as ‘theoretically’ the asynchronous nature of Ethernet and the reclocking / regeneration of the ethernet signal by each such device should mean only the quality of the last device (incl clock and PS quality) matters. And yet many folk have found benefits of stacking switches, including myself putting the Netgear GS108E (with IFI Power X PS) before the LHY, though I’m not a zealot here, it may be a quality FMC like the Teradak beats them.

 

[iFi audio]

The cleanest power, least components, and most isolation(fiber) is going to give you the best networked audio.

Indeed, that form of isolation has more pros than cons as far as audio quality goes. It really works well for our applications and in most cases makes a noticeable difference. Well, at least that's the feedback we got thus far.

 

[cpurdy]

it is very hard to make a wifi router work well for audio, no matter how you power it or connect it, so my point was that you would get a much bigger return on your investment in terms of improved sound quality from your streaming set up, if you were to spend it on even a basic switch and using it only for your hifi. Up to you of course how you spend your money

Audio streaming is async and uses such a small amount of bandwidth that any wifi AP from the last 15 years should be able to carry it without the slightest concern.

The only issue with wifi is that it is electromagnetic, like actually-on-purpose throwing out electromagnetic waves, so there is always the possibility of interference with other equipment, including the headphones themselves. If this were an actual issue in real life, we'd all have long since built dedicated Faraday cages with all of the equipment (networks, streamers, dacs, amps) on the outside and the reclining chair (for listening) on the inside.

Nonetheless, it is reasonable to limit the load that you put on wifi; it's nice to have wifi, but far preferable in most cases to use hard-wired connections if possible. If wireless is necessary and you don't want electromagnetic interference, consider using IEEE 802.11bb (line-of-sight, light-based communication).

But here's the thing, even with two switches and an iFi LAN silencer in series I can easily hear when wifi is ON vs OFF on the router. When wifi is ON sound gets a little (actually a lot, let's not sugar coat it!) flatter soundstage, thinner, with more glare. This is with the wifi power transmit set to minimum too. The router is located about 1m away from my stereo, not ideal I know, it's just where the cable enters the house. But fairly sure most of the effect is from noise over ethernet not radiated*, so have some well regarded FMCs en route (same Teradak one as Cam and some Finisar optical SFPs) to see if the 100% galvanic isolation of optical helps there.

*OK - stop press - I just tried something I should've done long ago.

Left wifi turned ON then shielded the router with foil, leaving open only the far corner facing away from the hifi gear so I could access the wifi ON/OFF button. I grounded the foil shield with some wire to my Puritan Groundmaster & external ground rod so the foil didn't just reradiate the RF it received. I have a 3 axis RF meter (50mhz - 3.5ghz range) so I checked RF levels adjacent to the nearest corner of the nearest component to the router - my DAC - with wifi ON before and after shielding. Levels reduced from the range of 1.5 - 4.0 µW/cm2 to 0.5 - 0.8 µW/cm2. An RF strength reduction of 65-80%. That's nice and all, what surprised me was the extent of the improvement in sound. Much of the juicy, more full bodied and three dimensional sound of wifi OFF was back. Not all mind, I found after further comparing shielded wifi ON vs wifi OFF, the latter still has a deeper, more expansive sound stage with more PRAT and dynamic weight, and sweeter, more velvety vocals. I'd estimate grounded shielding reduced the negative impact of wifi ON by say 60% give or take. But wifi OFF remains my clear preference, which is annoying, but what are you going to do.

First: Don't ground your Faraday cage. That can actually undo what you're trying to accomplish.

Second: Just turn off the wifi and leave it off. Wifi APs are so cheap at this point that it's silly to rely on the crappy wifi that comes in a multi-purpose router from your cable/phone/whatever company. I'd strongly suggest that you look at the TP-Link Deco wifi mesh system (specifically, the ones that support hardwired backhaul); they're great from a usability standpoint, easy to place where you want them, and don't seem to cause problems. I use these at home and at the office, and I've installed these in a few buildings, and so far everyone loves the results. Until they do something stupid, I'm never looking at any other systems. Try to always use a wired backhaul for them, and of course use wired Ethernet for as many devices as possible (to keep the wifi's electromagnetic interference to a minimum).

Third: I know that suggesting blind A/B testing is a religious no-no on this thread, but if you have another person handy who can randomly flip (or not flip) that wifi switch for you on your existing cheap router, I'd love to know what your success rate is on identifying when it's on vs. not. If you reliably can tell, then in theory we could one-by-one isolate what is getting hammered by the electromagnetic radiation. It's a topic I've always been curious about, but never had a testable issue to examine. In your case, it could be your headphones. Or the dac? The amp? Some power supply? Some combination thereof? I'm legit curious. Also, if the wifi is dual band, try using one band and not the other, to see if e.g. the 2.4Ghz band is the offender, vs. the 5+Ghz range.

 

[camrector]

Audio streaming is async and uses such a small amount of bandwidth that any wifi AP from the last 15 years should be able to carry it without the slightest concern.

The only issue with wifi is that it is electromagnetic, like actually-on-purpose throwing out electromagnetic waves, so there is always the possibility of interference with other equipment, including the headphones themselves. If this were an actual issue in real life, we'd all have long since built dedicated Faraday cages with all of the equipment (networks, streamers, dacs, amps) on the outside and the reclining chair (for listening) on the inside.

Nonetheless, it is reasonable to limit the load that you put on wifi; it's nice to have wifi, but far preferable in most cases to use hard-wired connections if possible. If wireless is necessary and you don't want electromagnetic interference, consider using IEEE 802.11bb (line-of-sight, light-based communication).

First: Don't ground your Faraday cage. That can actually undo what you're trying to accomplish.

Second: Just turn off the wifi and leave it off. Wifi APs are so cheap at this point that it's silly to rely on the crappy wifi that comes in a multi-purpose router from your cable/phone/whatever company. I'd strongly suggest that you look at the TP-Link Deco wifi mesh system (specifically, the ones that support hardwired backhaul); they're great from a usability standpoint, easy to place where you want them, and don't seem to cause problems. I use these at home and at the office, and I've installed these in a few buildings, and so far everyone loves the results. Until they do something stupid, I'm never looking at any other systems. Try to always use a wired backhaul for them, and of course use wired Ethernet for as many devices as possible (to keep the wifi's electromagnetic interference to a minimum).

Third: I know that suggesting blind A/B testing is a religious no-no on this thread, but if you have another person handy who can randomly flip (or not flip) that wifi switch for you on your existing cheap router, I'd love to know what your success rate is on identifying when it's on vs. not. If you reliably can tell, then in theory we could one-by-one isolate what is getting hammered by the electromagnetic radiation. It's a topic I've always been curious about, but never had a testable issue to examine. In your case, it could be your headphones. Or the dac? The amp? Some power supply? Some combination thereof? I'm legit curious. Also, if the wifi is dual band, try using one band and not the other, to see if e.g. the 2.4Ghz band is the offender, vs. the 5+Ghz range.

Yup
For my implementation im not using Wifi for audio.
My plan is to go direct from router sfp port to fiber media convertor then a 12in Lan to dac.
This will eliminate a switch and a second fiber media Convertor.

 

[teknorob23]

Hi Rob, I follow your posts with interest here as I am aware of the reputation of your products and can appreciate the amount of time / experimentation effort it must've taken to develop and refine them. (I'll have to try them one day, as I've read more than one rave review of the Eno and Muon)

So I took on board what I think were your key points from your experience in your exchange with Cam: that routers are typically so noisy they're practically a lost cause (or very expensive to remedy) and that you don't favour FMCs due to the HF noise byproducts of the optical conversion step. On the former my experience aligns - the more switches or filters (I have a couple of the iFi LAN purifiers) I interpose between my streamer and the router the better.

But here's the thing, even with two switches and an iFi LAN silencer in series I can easily hear when wifi is ON vs OFF on the router. When wifi is ON sound gets a little (actually a lot, let's not sugar coat it!) flatter soundstage, thinner, with more glare. This is with the wifi power transmit set to minimum too. The router is located about 1m away from my stereo, not ideal I know, it's just where the cable enters the house. But fairly sure most of the effect is from noise over ethernet not radiated*, so have some well regarded FMCs en route (same Teradak one as Cam and some Finisar optical SFPs) to see if the 100% galvanic isolation of optical helps there.

*OK - stop press - I just tried something I should've done long ago.

Left wifi turned ON then shielded the router with foil, leaving open only the far corner facing away from the hifi gear so I could access the wifi ON/OFF button. I grounded the foil shield with some wire to my Puritan Groundmaster & external ground rod so the foil didn't just reradiate the RF it received. I have a 3 axis RF meter (50mhz - 3.5ghz range) so I checked RF levels adjacent to the nearest corner of the nearest component to the router - my DAC - with wifi ON before and after shielding. Levels reduced from the range of 1.5 - 4.0 µW/cm2 to 0.5 - 0.8 µW/cm2. An RF strength reduction of 65-80%. That's nice and all, what surprised me was the extent of the improvement in sound. Much of the juicy, more full bodied and three dimensional sound of wifi OFF was back. Not all mind, I found after further comparing shielded wifi ON vs wifi OFF, the latter still has a deeper, more expansive sound stage with more PRAT and dynamic weight, and sweeter, more velvety vocals. I'd estimate grounded shielding reduced the negative impact of wifi ON by say 60% give or take. But wifi OFF remains my clear preference, which is annoying, but what are you going to do.

For the record I've been critically listening with wifi OFF for at least the last 6 months, it sounds that much better, especially vs an unshielded router with WIFI ON.

My observation / prelim conclusion - wifi radiation from a nearby wireless router has a negative effect via direct radiation on nearby components, it also seems to have an effect via noise of the ethernet cable. Though part of this could be imperfect RF shielding. It'll be interesting to see if FMCs help improve the sound in the WiFi ON + shielded scenario.

So Rob... thoughts on the above, does that correspond with your experience, what you might expect to see?

(Btw I was going to go on to comment on the audible effect of fo.Q vibration damping on my LHY switch - each layer is quite audible/benefical, but this post has gone on long enough so will save that for another post)

@Jake2 sorry for the delay in responding to your question. In my experience there is little point the trying to pimp a router and i'm not totally down on fiber and using FMCs can give an initial impression of improved clarity and wider sound stage, but in general the sound becomes brittle and staging can lack focus.
that said If you have long distances to cover say between your router and your audio system, then it can work okay, but i would still suggest you get the conversion back to an electronic signal before your last metre. Try to keep the number of active devices in your network chain to minimum with a few key tasks done well and avoiding unnecessary conversions. Any active device will emit high-frequency noise picked up from its power supply, which will then get mixed in with the data and enter you streamer via it RJ45 socket where it infects its ground plane and that of any connected DAC.

A quick note on Galvanic Isolation which is designed to stop low frequency ‘mains’ frequency interference and DC voltages, but has no benefit for removing RFI noise.
Galvanic Isolation within ethernet networks is always physically implemented in Network switches where each connection goes through high frequency transformers for each of the 8 pins in the RJ45 connector. A high frequency transformer is used in order to pass through the data signal (which is a high frequency) while blocking DC and low frequency noise. They don’t block RFI frequencies higher than the Ethernet signal as they are ‘high pass’ transformers. Therefore, any RFI mixed in with the Ethernet signal will pass through the filter. Galvanic Isolation transformers are only found in Network Switches, not on the input RJ45 sockets in streamers, therefore the streamer’s RJ45 input is highly exposed to RFI noise.

Regarding WIFI, every socket on your streamer from USB to RCAs share a common ground plane, so i've generally found keeping the WIFI off on all devices near your hifi improves things too and my experience is consistent with yours, but ambient or radiated RFI while no doubt and issue, removing signal born noise in most systems generally has a bigger impact on the performance of you streamer and dac.

Are you using good power supplies with your two switches, this should help too.

 

[F208Frank]

@Jake2 sorry for the delay in responding to your question. In my experience there is little point the trying to pimp a router and i'm not totally down on fiber and using FMCs can give an initial impression of improved clarity and wider sound stage, but in general the sound becomes brittle and staging can lack focus.
that said If you have long distances to cover say between your router and your audio system, then it can work okay, but i would still suggest you get the conversion back to an electronic signal before your last metre. Try to keep the number of active devices in your network chain to minimum with a few key tasks done well and avoiding unnecessary conversions. Any active device will emit high-frequency noise picked up from its power supply, which will then get mixed in with the data and enter you streamer via it RJ45 socket where it infects its ground plane and that of any connected DAC.

A quick note on Galvanic Isolation which is designed to stop low frequency ‘mains’ frequency interference and DC voltages, but has no benefit for removing RFI noise.
Galvanic Isolation within ethernet networks is always physically implemented in Network switches where each connection goes through high frequency transformers for each of the 8 pins in the RJ45 connector. A high frequency transformer is used in order to pass through the data signal (which is a high frequency) while blocking DC and low frequency noise. They don’t block RFI frequencies higher than the Ethernet signal as they are ‘high pass’ transformers. Therefore, any RFI mixed in with the Ethernet signal will pass through the filter. Galvanic Isolation transformers are only found in Network Switches, not on the input RJ45 sockets in streamers, therefore the streamer’s RJ45 input is highly exposed to RFI noise.

Regarding WIFI, every socket on your streamer from USB to RCAs share a common ground plane, so i've generally found keeping the WIFI off on all devices near your hifi improves things too and my experience is consistent with yours, but ambient or radiated RFI while no doubt and issue, removing signal born noise in most systems generally has a bigger impact on the performance of you streamer and dac.

Are you using good power supplies with your two switches, this should help too.

What's your take on something like the MPS-X?

On one hand I recognize and did read prior that youd stay away from converting and keeping it simple but since the PLINK connection between playback MPS-X and the playback DACS are optimized to work well together, I got very curious experimenting with this.

 

[camrector]

in general the sound becomes brittle and staging can lack focus.

You are the only person I have ever heard say this out of the 100s of people that have been using FMCs. Not being a jerk but your $800 device attempts to solve the same issues that a $200 pair of FMCs and linear power supply 100% solves. So it would make sense for you to down play FMCs.

Conversions are happening regardless. Coax or fiber coming into the home is converted to Lan in many cases on a cheap ISP supplied modem then sent to a cheap ISP supplied wireless router.
I’m going to call BS on the industries only answer to slap some “pimped” audiophile switch inbetween all that garbage and our system as the cure.
Plus that’s 1 more active component in the chain. You’re not going to be able to drop a modem and a router so better to Pimp that router for sure with a sfp and higher quality components.
The audio industry isn’t going to do make one because it isn’t mass marketable nor could they afford all the compatibility issues, trouble shooting and customer service that goes into a product like that.
I’ll take fiber isolation all day instead of these long antennae runs of Ethernet cable running through the walls of a home.

 

[F208Frank]

@OCC7N, thanks for posting the video about cascading switches, it was very informative. It was @teknorob23 who suggested that I put two iFi Elite powered network switches between my router and his Eno Ethernet filter system Ag to improve the SQ in my setup. https://www.networkacoustics.com/shop/eno-streaming-system/. It really worked to give the music a more analog and enjoyable sound.

It was also Rob who introduced me to the world of common basic network switches making a significant improvement in the chain. Forever thankful.

Regarding camrector response above, to be fair to Rob, he usually advocates and encourages self trials via buying a generic network switch and throw it between streamer and dac to see if one can hear audible differences.

The router itself is too noisy so when there is a dedicated generic ethernet switch near the audio chain, it cleans it up by quite a bit, and then the passive devices sold by network acoustics mops up the rest of the noise passively by placing those passive devices behind the network switch which then goes into streamer. Dont take my word for it, but the overwhelming amounts of positive reviews across multiple different forums says a lot.

Also even without the passive device behind the ethernet switch, the differences for me were enough for me to explore these passive devices. I was actually one of the first batch of customers so I was extra skeptical without the positive reviews at the time.

I have another really cool upcoming experiment coming...

I am going to use the K50 as server and the playback MPSx as a player soon which connects to the playback dac with fiber. I am planning to take out the MUON and ethernet filter prior to the K50 and see if that will make a difference, my gut feel is that it will, but this would really be a fun experiment for me since if fiber is being connect from my player (mps-x) to dac, to be able to see if "fiber solves all" for my case.

 

[camrector]

The router itself is too noisy so when there is a dedicated generic ethernet switch near the audio chain, it cleans it up by quite a bit,

Many of these routers have generic switches built right in and the sfp is going to clean up the noise better than a powered switch.
Plug all the “dirty” noisy components in to the extra Lan ports on the router and the fiber will do the rest.
If your concerned about the last fmc going to the dac, Robs device can still come into play.

 

[Jake2]

It was also Rob who introduced me to the world of common basic network switches making a significant improvement in the chain. Forever thankful.

Regarding camrector response above, to be fair to Rob, he usually advocates and encourages self trials via buying a generic network switch and throw it between streamer and dac to see if one can hear audible differences.

The router itself is too noisy so when there is a dedicated generic ethernet switch near the audio chain, it cleans it up by quite a bit, and then the passive devices sold by network acoustics mops up the rest of the noise passively by placing those passive devices behind the network switch which then goes into streamer. Dont take my word for it, but the overwhelming amounts of positive reviews across multiple different forums says a lot.

Also even without the passive device behind the ethernet switch, the differences for me were enough for me to explore these passive devices. I was actually one of the first batch of customers so I was extra skeptical without the positive reviews at the time.

I have another really cool upcoming experiment coming...

I am going to use the K50 as server and the playback MPSx as a player soon which connects to the playback dac with fiber. I am planning to take out the MUON and ethernet filter prior to the K50 and see if that will make a difference, my gut feel is that it will, but this would really be a fun experiment for me since if fiber is being connect from my player (mps-x) to dac, to be able to see if "fiber solves all" for my case.

I'll be interested to hear how you get on but would be rather surprised if that last fibre step 'solves all' for a couple of reasons:

• the experiences of a number of folk on this and other forums who've changed things on the 'dirty' or upstream side of FMCs (e.g. added linear PS) and heard improvements. As to the technical mechanism for this, I really couldn't say, it has been certainly debated with a few theories thrown around, but I've yet to come across a technical explanation or theory that I find fully satisfactory.
• my own experience with my more modest Roon/HQP server - a Mac Mini M1 (albeit pimped with a grounding box to a spare USB port, and yes this makes a big difference), which performs/sounds 'better' when connected to my better switch (to which my DAC is also connected), rather than as conventional wisdom would suggest placing it more remote to the DAC a to an upstream switch to minimise noise transfer. My guess is the Mini somehow has an easier time of things with a better clocked and lower noise ethernet stream so doesn't have to work as hard... or something like that*.

*Edit - and yet it would seem - as you'd expect - the Mini was a source of noise as inserting an iFi LAN iSilencer between the Mini and the LHY switch improved things further. I look forward to seeing how the Teradak FMC might change my preferences here.

 

[camrector]

I'll be interested to hear how you get on but would be rather surprised if that last fibre step 'solves all' for a couple of reasons:

• the experiences of a number of folk on this and other forums who've changed things on the 'dirty' or upstream side of FMCs (e.g. added linear PS) and heard improvements. As to the technical mechanism for this, I really couldn't say, it has been certainly debated with a few theories thrown around, but I've yet to come across a technical explanation or theory that I find fully satisfactory.
• my own experience with my more modest Roon/HQP server - a Mac Mini M1 (albeit pimped with a grounding box to a spare USB port, and yes this makes a big difference), which performs/sounds 'better' when connected to my better switch (to which my DAC is also connected), rather than as conventional wisdom would suggest placing it more remote to the DAC a to an upstream switch to minimise noise transfer. My guess is the Mini somehow has an easier time of things with a better clocked and lower noise ethernet stream so doesn't have to work as hard... or something like that.

This Ubiquiti Edgerouter X SFP I just ordered has a grounding port perfect for a Puritan ground master. With an added 24v linear power supply, this is checking all the boxes.