NotABot

@audiobomber, thanks for your comments. I have indeed noticed ground loops with CAT7 and CAT8. I use an ifi LAN iSilencer for the PC's CAT7 data connection to the router. I also use Radial Twin Iso boxes at the start and end of CAT8 cable runs for analogue balanced audio. The Jensen transformers in the Twin Iso do have a subtle warm sound, but I quite enjoy the flavour they impart. Based on the necessity for iso transformers in setups (B) and (C), setup (A) with SFP optical ports/cables is probably the best option for absolute purity. That said, are there any audiophiles out there who enjoy (or prefer) the simplicity and cost of using long balanced audio cables? I can't be the only one...

I don't have a transporter to try setup (A). I'm trying to determine whether the spend is worth it, based on feedback from others who've already compared the setups. Hence my original post above.

Hi Everyone, Any thoughts on using a transport vs long balanced cables? To make things more complicated, any thoughts on using an ethernet cable's twisted pairs to carry analogue balanced signals in place of dedicated XLR/TRS cables? The three setups in mind are: (A) PC - router via CAT8 - transport via CAT8 - DAC - short balanced cables - preamp (B) PC - USB cleanser - DAC - 100ft balanced XLR/TRS cables - preamp (C) PC - USB cleanser - DAC - 100ft CAT8 cable carrying two balanced analogue channels - preamp I currently have setup (C) in my house. I use an LHY UIP as USB cleanser, LyxPro box to carry analogue balanced signals over CAT8 (https://a.co/d/81QHTcs), and occasionally switch the output to other rooms with a manual RJ45 switch box (https://a.co/d/5q2RTEE). Setup (C) sounds good to me, with relatively low noise only detectable close to the speakers. However, I wonder if SQ can be boosted further by using dedicated balanced cables in setup (B), or a transport in setup (A). Your feedback would be most welcome.

Looks like Paul from PS Audio has weighed in on this topic at least twice, and opined that a passive split with a Y-cable won't make any difference if done right: I suspect that splitting a balanced signal would be even less susceptible to degradation. If anything, perhapse my Radial Twin ISO box may cause an issue due to only being 600 ohms - I'll have to experiment with taking this component in/out of the chain. If there are any other perspectives, please speak up! Otherwise I'm happy to let this topic rest with Paul's opinion.

I've seen this topic a variety of times throughout the studio forums, but never in hifi forums. I understand that some gain is lost with a passive split, but is there any SQ loss with make-up gain in a mid-fi system (around $10k after the split)? If the answer is "no", is there any meaningful impact to SQ when downstream components are upgraded to the $20-30k level? In my application, the analogue component before the split has an output impedance of 75ohms at 1kHz. I contemplate splitting the analogue signal between: (a) an ADC converter (5.5kR or 5,500 ohms vs 14.5 kR or 14,500 ohms depending on the input), and (b) a Radial Twin ISO box (600 ohms in and out) which will feed an Schiit Mjolnir 3 preamp downstream. If a split is a bad idea I could also simply use a switcher box, but I'd like to simplify the setup where there is no meaningful impact to SQ. What's the consensus within the hifi community on passive splits?

Thanks for your quick responses. I didn't know RME's ADI-2 Pro did DSD recording either. All of the options appear to involve considerable extra expense. I think I'll start with Roon's 14-day trial outputting to the analogue gear via PCM, then convert/upsample the signal to DSD in HQ Player, and then output DSD to a NAA. Over time I may replace the PCM parts of the chain, we'll see. Thanks again.

Hi Everyone, I stream from Qobuz within HQ Player Client to HQ Player Desktop, where the signal is upsampled to 192k. This feed goes into my Prism Sound Titan interface, which outputs the signal through various pieces of high end studio gear (Neve 1073 DPX preamps, etc.) in the analogue domain. The signal is then reconverted back to digital (to use the Titan's preamps), and sent out to my speakers. I enjoy how this setup adds body, width and permits EQ shaping. However, I'd like to determine whether an additional conversion to DSD just before playback could further enhance the signal. So, I'm trying to send the post-processed 192k PCM signal to another instance of HQ Player, to be converted/upsampled to DSD and sent out to an NAA for playback. Three questions: Can I run two instances of HQ Player Desktop on one PC, processing two different feeds? Is it even worth converting/upsampling to DSD after the initial 192k PCM signal has been converted to analogue, gone through analogue studio gear, and then converted back to a 192k PCM signal? Or has the original signal been so drastically altered that further conversion to DSD would provide no additional benefit? Is there any SQ loss in having the Qobuz stream come through Roon at the start of the chain, thereby freeing up HQPlayer to upsample after the signal is processed through the studio gear?