A novel way to massively improve the SQ of computer audio streaming

[TopQuark]

1 hour ago, AmusedToD said:

The good thing is that the superior clock that can be found in the txUSBultra is also used in the sms200Ultra, and the sms200Ultra can be modified in a way to support up to 2 external devices (for example a switch and a router). So one can send his/her sms200Ultra and his router/switch to SOTM for them to make the mods.

 

So the 4 clocks that are in tX-USBultra today are in also in sMS-200Ultra?

[TopQuark]

39 minutes ago, guerph said:

May said they are planning an upgrade path to the sMS-200ultra for folks with the sMS-200.

 

This is great. I can't wait to hear more and when.  I hope this happens right after Munich.

[TopQuark]

38 minutes ago, AmusedToD said:

Perfect, in that case I won't need to sell my SMS-200 (I just bought the sms200Ultra and now have both), I should just send it over to SOTM and receive a cashback of some sort, right? But the question is - what is the amount of the cashback?

 

...and should also happen soon before the 10% off expires.

 

It would be nice if SOtM ships a package that includes the switch mod with switch sourced by them and sMS-200Ultra with all the clock cables in between.

 

SOtM, May?, your turn...

 

[TopQuark]

2 hours ago, Johnseye said:

To clarify, why don't they just replace the clocks used in the standard sMS-200 with those used on the sCLK-EX?  Why the need to add an sCLK-EX with every device to make it an ultra?  Build the required components directly onto the board of the devices instead of using U.FL connectors to the sCLK-EX.  The only benefit I can see of using the sCLK-EX itself is to chain them together in a master slave scenario.  If someone ends up buying the tx ultra and the sMS-200 ultra, then what they have is 2 sCLK-EX boards with a lot of clocks going unused, especially when one sCLK-EX could be used for both, the only difference being longer cables used for connectivity and possibly a different interface with the SMB.

 

+1 Thanks to Roy.  Great thread.

 

I have the same questions.  If you read the description of the sMS-200Ultra, it comes with sCLK-EX board but with only 2 clocks available all used up by the sMS-200Ultra.  I am verifying this with SOtM so we'll see.

 

SOtM now offers a new configuration that includes the sMS-200Ultra and the switch mod.  The switch will be sourced by SOtM.  If this is the case, the sMS-200Ultra will include 3 clocks.  This is now available for order at their website.

 

Still, the question remains whether the sMS-200Ultra board contains 4 clocks or just 3 clocks with the switch mod.  I'll keep everyone posted as I get more info.

[TopQuark]

6 minutes ago, austinpop said:

I think it's been confirmed that the sMS-200Ultra, like the tX and dX, just includes the sCLK-EX board, which has 4 taps. 2 of these are used internally, and the remaining 2 are available to clock other things.

 

Yes, I also confirmed it myself from SOtM.  The sMS-200Ultra will contain 4 clocks.

 

6 minutes ago, austinpop said:

Oh cool. But hmm, I don't see it. Which website? Can you post a link?

 

https://sotm-usa.com/collections/ultra-series-mods/products/sms-200ultra-audio-network-player-mods

 

For AUS and US customers only.  Otherwise, add $25 for international shipments.

[TopQuark]

Also, I have not seen it officially announced yet, the trade-in value in upgrading from sMS-200 to sMS-200Ultra is $180.  This is from my conversation with them.

 

 

[TopQuark]

Just now, rickca said:

If I'm using the network bridge 'direct attach' for the sMS-200ultra, where does a switch with a clock upgrade fit into the configuration?  Can someone provide either a description or a diagram, please?

 

The network interface set-up can be kept as it is.  Here's how other had it set-up:

 

NAS (fileserver) ► Switch ► Roon Server ► sMS200Ultra ► tX-USBultra (optional) ► DAC

[TopQuark]

2 minutes ago, rickca said:

I see the price on this is $1500, so $300 more than just the sMS-200Ultra.  I don't recall how much @romaz said he paid for the switch mod, but IIRC it was considerably less than $300.  I suppose this new configuration includes a switch sourced by SOtM, but they are really inexpensive.

 

I believe he paid like $200 for the mod if I'm not mistaken but that didn't include the switch. SOtM price includes the switch.  Shipping the switch to Korea and back can easily cost $100.  Factor in a 10% discount that is currently offered and it makes it more reasonable.

[TopQuark]

1 minute ago, rickca said:

OK thanks!  @TopQuark I do not have a NAS, nor do I use Roon.  My music files are hosted on the Windows 10 machine which has the bridged network connection.

 

If that's the case, you can add the switch after the Windows machine but I'm not sure how much the SQ will improve at that point.

 

[TopQuark]

3 hours ago, semajm85 said:

I'm confused about the switch modification. 

 

So for the price of  $1500 I get the sms200 ultra as well as a modified switch?

 

It clearly shows it in the site now.  Yes, it does include a switch sourced by SOtM.

[TopQuark]

Anyone here knows when SOtM will add static IP to the firmware?  It doesn't work with ROON Rock right now without static IP:

 

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/rock-dual-ethernet-primary-port-not-exposed/26222/10

 

 

[TopQuark]

Roon bump this "bridged" set-up one notch higher with ROCK server.  ROCK can now be setup without bridging the 2 ethernet ports but creating it's own LAN between the music server (sMS-200 or uRendu) and the Roon server (NUC).

 

This set-up prevent outside packets from internet and your local network traffic from reaching the music server so only pure unhindered music data packets reach the music server. In my system, this has added dimensionality from the previous bridged set-up.

 

The only drawback is the music server will be cut-off from the local LAN.  Updating the firmware of the music server takes extra steps but it's a minor nuisance and well worth the trade-off.

 

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/rock-dual-ethernet-primary-port-not-exposed/26222/42

 

I thought I should mention this since Roon was used in the original thread.

[TopQuark]

1 hour ago, AmusedToD said:

Interesting. I am thinking about going the ROCK route with an Intel NUC. So if you connect the NUC directly through its LAN port with an appropriate streamer (sms200 or microrendu), how do you provide internet access for the NUC? Through a LAN-USB adapter or through wifi?

 

Yes, through a USB Ethernet adapter.  The Pluggable USB3 gigabit sold at Amazon is compatible with ROCK.  This adapter connects to the local LAN and internet.

 

1 hour ago, AmusedToD said:

Do you think Roon OS would sound better than Windows 10?

 

Do you mean Roon OS sounds better in ROCK than Roon OS in Windows 10?  If so ROCK, where Roon OS resides at, is very light and optimized for just serving Roon files and passing audio files getting rid of other unnecessary features.  The image file itself is only 307MB and it took me like 2 minutes to install it to the NUC from a USB stick and that includes Linux and Roon Server! 

 

Whether it sounds better than a similar Roon OS setup in Windows 10, I cannot tell because I run this setup before without the sMS-200.  Theoretically though, ROCK in Linux should be better just because it was designed from scratch just for audio without the gazillion things going on in Windows.

 

1 hour ago, AmusedToD said:

Another think to consider is an appropriate linear PSU for the ROCK NUC. If one decides to go for the more powerful unit (NUC7i7BNH) a simple 19v linear PSU probably won't do it. Perhaps something like iFi DC iPurifier along with the stock SMPS could do the trick for less money.

 

If you do DSD512 and multiple endpoints, then NIC7i7 is best alternative.  Otherwise, NUC7i5 can serve DSD512 for a single endpoint and it's TDP is only 15W max compared to 28W max on the NIC7i7 so you can leave it running 24/7 without much concern for electricity consumption.

 

19V is more than enough.  NUC can run 12V at 3.5A just having the standard DRAM, M.2 SSD, and ethernet connected to your NAS.  Adding an internal hard drive will significantly bump this up.

 

 

[TopQuark]

46 minutes ago, austinpop said:

I'd refer you back to Roy's first posts describing the direct connection. The "direct" comes from bridging the server, so the endpoint is isolated from the router, rather than connected to the same switch.

 

If the endpoint is isolated from the router, the more relevant term for this is "subnetting", i.e. the LAN ip is from a totally different subnet than server/endpoint ip.

 

46 minutes ago, austinpop said:

Adding the modded switch between the server and the endpoint still maintains that isolation from the router. The modded switch in this path, due to its clock mods, linear regulators, clean LPS (I use the LPS-1) is really acting as an Ethernet reclocker.

 

I wonder how much more critical is having the server (NUC, Windows, Roon Server, ROCK, etc.) have clean power if the modded switch already does this function.  It looks to me the buck stops here.

[TopQuark]

5 hours ago, Bamber said:

I pre-ordered a SMS-200 Ultra without the master clock.   I would need to pay another £200 ($257.90) to add the MC.

 

It would have been a lot cheaper for me to purchase a new SMS-200 and pay the $900 to upgrade to the Ultra with master clock.

 

Their crazy pricing has put me off buying the other items I had planned to complete the Romaz chain.  I could have easily spent another £4K or £5K on their products including the MC when it is released. 

 

This is a good point. I just ordered the sMS-200ultra also without the MC activated. That just put a barrier in me adding an external clock in the future.  SOtM should have dropped the standard 10 Mhz MC for free to their sMS-200ultra pricing.  They can make it up through the upcoming master clock upgrade in the future.

[TopQuark]

1 hour ago, AmusedToD said:

Anyways, my idea was to build a ROCK server (Intel NUC i7), power it with a fine linear PSU and then establish a direct ethernet connection to my sms200Ultra. But that's a $1000 ball game, and I really can't stretch that far without knowing at least what to expect in terms of sonic improvements (if any).

 

Since the sMS-200ultra has better clocks, theoretically it should sound better.  Those coming from sMS-200 and upgraded to sMS-200ultra already experienced this.

 

1 hour ago, AmusedToD said:

I know it would make sense if such ROCK machine was connected directly to a DAC via USB (clean power, clean Roon OS, etc.), but having in mind we are running galvanicaly isolated ethernet connections to "clean" streamers here, I am not sure it would make a dramatic effect.

 

This depends on your overall system - how resolving your DAC is, speakers or headphones, cables, and LAN setup.  A dedicated streamer usually is designed to have better regulators and noise reduction features unlike in a NUC.  Other than galvanic isolation, a streamer also can isolate packets not necessary for music streaming like Roon album data and everything else that goes with it.  So for purist standpoint, this is the way to go.

 

Another option is to add the tX-USBexp PCIe to the NUC for noise reduction and better regulators and eliminate the streamer, but I am not sure if this is possible with the NUC.

[TopQuark]

3 hours ago, Superdad said:

 

And if our piece--with its galvanic isolation and USPCB for direct placement at the DAC--comes out equal or on top, will you guys complain if I triple the price to match at $990? 

 

You still have to add 3 clock outputs available for it to be competitive .

[TopQuark]

1 hour ago, seeteeyou said:

Now I see what you're looking for, let's say we're already owners of the original sMS-200 and then we're paying for that 990 + 210 = $1,200 tX-USBultra. It's like killing two birds with one stone.

 

I asked this question before to SOtM.  What I got was that modding sMS-200 will not be as good as having the ultras because the external clock connection in the mod is not as good as the internal clock connection with the ultras.

[TopQuark]

@limniscateand @austinpop I wish you have Paul Hynes in the chain up to the DAC.  Where are you guys located at?  I have a spare in Silly Valley area if you are nearby.

 

[TopQuark]

7 hours ago, Bamber said:

The snag was that I wanted a black chassis to match everything else in my rack as due to the size they aren't easily hidden away.  Paul told me that his chassis supplier has to send the original aluminium chassis away for re-anodising with the black finish.  I was prepared to wait 2 or 3 months but feared my request for a black chassis may push this back further.  Paul was kind enough to cancel my order as he hadn't ordered any parts so it had cost him nothing.

 

So I'm researching other power supplies so I can get the best from the SotM chain.  Ideally, I'd like to have a good power supply in place within a few weeks.

 

Too bad you are pressed with getting an LPS much sooner.  Aesthetics is important but I really think that this should not get in the way in deciding for a good power supply.  A good power supply can make all the difference in the chain so this is where I will not skimp with.

[TopQuark]

6 hours ago, greenleo said:

LPS-1 is of more useful features say 3/5/7V outputs with excellent bang for the bucks.

 

The SR3 alone is very competitive with LPS-1. I have one with variable output 5/7/9/12V and 2.5A (10A transient) with high grade silver contacts for the rotary switch and connectors.  It might be a little more than LPS-1 but definitely worth it.

[TopQuark]

27 minutes ago, limniscate said:

 

My dCBL7 cables may not be burned in yet, but so far, I'd have to disagree with @romaz  They don't seem to impact the sound quality very much, if at all.

 

@romaz is using very low impedance PH power supply so he's experiencing lots of resolving power there. Perhaps, wait until you have your PH power supply?

[TopQuark]

14 hours ago, austinpop said:

1. Compare mR/LPS-1 to sMS-Ultra powered by HDPlex 12V
   • No contest. The SQ improvement was yuge. 
   • Bigger, more dynamic, more resolution, better articulation

 

Great job, guys! 

 

I just want to make sure I am not interpreting this differently.  Do you mean the latter (sMS-200ultra powered by HDPlex 12V) provides significantly better SQ improvement?

 

14 hours ago, austinpop said:

• All switches modded for sCLK-EX and upgraded regulators/capacitors still sound different. To my ears the Zyxel sounded a tad better than the DLink, but my choice of it for modding was dumb luck!

 

I understand from another posting that the connectors are different that may account for the difference in SQ.  Were both switches modded by SOtM?  Are you aware of any difference in how SOtM modded the switches, e.g. regulators, caps, etc?

[TopQuark]

25 minutes ago, Bamber said:

I'm getting sCLK-EX boards in each so I can maintain flexibility.

 

That explains why SOtM agreed to mod your SU-1 and W4S.  It not merely tapping from the tX or the sMS.  That will end up with a lot of unused clocks to spare.

 

[TopQuark]

19 hours ago, austinpop said:

1.  Replace tX-USBultra with ISO-Regen

1. • Baseline:          Z-switch > sMS-200 mod > tX-USBultra
   • Comparison:     Z-switch > sMS-200 mod > ISO-Regen
   • Result: 
     • Very close. WOW. Very, very close! We are so impressed with the ISO-Regen. 

 

When you say "sMS-200 mod", does that mean the tX-USBultra clock is connected to the sMS-200 or was the clock cable unplugged to function just like a regular sMS-200 (non-ultra) during the above tests?