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

[phusis]

Quite the elaborate thread (skipped through it) - interesting read.

 

Has anyone compared the "bridged LAN-connection" to the recent, just updated wifi-feature through the sMS-200? Wouldn't a succesful wifi-connection here potentially "deflate" some of the efforts sought on the LAN-connectivity?

[phusis]

That would be much too simple.

 

Why? Seriously, isn't it a rather typical tendency of the "audiophile-inflicted," as a mere mind-outset, to expect the more complicated as that which is more preferable? I'm not trying to be rude, but simply to put into question why the wifi-route would necessarily be "much too simple."

 

It could sound better and I'm open to anything that sounds better. Based on what May Park of SOtM has said, however, this wifi connectivity with the sMS-200 sounds no better than the standard connection, it is supposed to be more of a convenience option. When I connected a USB drive directly to the SOtM's USB port, it still didn't sound as good as this direct connection between my Mac Mini and the sMS-200.

 

It'll be interesting to see the sonic findings on this once tested by many.

 

In another thread here Fujak reported on SQ for the SOTM200 with Wifi connection and I also did some SQ comparisons with Wifi.

 

 

A wifi connection can sound better according to us compared to a LAN connection. But in my setup I compared the Wifi-SQ with the SOTM connected via a cheap LAN-switch. When I connect my SOTM directly to my router the SQ improves quite a lot and is bit better (after more extended listening) than the Wifi-SQ. I have not yet tested the LAN-bridge setup discussed in this thread.

 

 

May from SOTM sent me an email about the Wifi connection. She prefers her LAN connection, improved by an IsoCat-6 and a dCBL-CAT7 cable. I do not know if she uses a LAN-switch.

 

Strictly speaking May only mentions wifi-speed, not sound quality, so I don't see anything here that would indicate her preference sound-wise:

 

"[...] I like the wired one since WiFi is a bit slower than wired one and I’m using the iSO-CAT6 & dCBL-CAT7 for my Ethernet, so it seems okay for me. Best regards, MAy."

 

Being a rather cheap investment I've ordered the Edimax EW-7811UAC wifi-dongle to see how it pans out..

[phusis]

Stupid question perhaps:

 

Does the way the wired LAN-connection is configured matter when a LAN-isolator just before the network player is used? As in, will the LAN-signal on the side of the network player, after the LAN-isolator "treatment," benefit from a less polluted signal (in the wake of a bridged LAN-connection) prior to the LAN-isolator treatment?

[phusis]

I have the same LAN-isolator that you do, the SOtM iSO-CAT6 and I am using it between my Mac Mini and SOtM-200. While the difference I can detect with it in the chain is small (meaning I could easily live without it), it seems to improve it and so I have kept it in. I have yet to try my optical isolators (FMCs) between Mac Mini and sMS-200 to see if they would make a difference.

 

So, how would you rate the sonic difference between bridged LAN-connection with the iSO-CAT6 implemented (between the host computer here and network player), and that of the LAN-connection to either router-direct or via switch (still with the iSO-CAT6 implemented) - insofar you've tried out these configurations with the iSO-CAT6 implemented in every instance? I'm asking to find out whether the LAN-isolator may (or may not) diminish the difference, and if there's still a significant leap in sound quality to gain with bridged LAN-connection compared to the router/switch connection - with the iSO-CAT6 implemented in all cases.

[phusis]

It could sound better and I'm open to anything that sounds better. Based on what May Park of SOtM has said, however, this wifi connectivity with the sMS-200 sounds no better than the standard connection, it is supposed to be more of a convenience option. When I connected a USB drive directly to the SOtM's USB port, it still didn't sound as good as this direct connection between my Mac Mini and the sMS-200.

 

In an email to May Park close to a week ago I inquired on the sonic assessment of the wifi-route, and as of Jan. 9th she had yet to make any evaluation hereof (still pending). So, it's still up in the air how Ms. Park (and her engineering team) will come to value the sonic potential of wifi connectivity through the sMS-200 - which of course may prove a variable outcome compared to other setups.

 

I, on the hand, have had some days now to assess the sound through wifi; last Thursday I received my Edimax wifi-dongle (the one recommended by SOtM), and after a trouble free setup and configuration (that is, almost; initially my Kazoo control couldn't "see" the sMS-200 until entering the Eunhasu page though the new IP-address and a following reboot) I've come to some interesting findings:

 

My earlier, cabled configuration was from a Cisco router>iSO-CAT6>sMS-200, and the sound here was a generally pleasing, but occasionally mixed bag. Resolution and saturation was usually top notch, but the sound was slightly marred by a "lightness" or lean character and, depending on the day (atmospheric conditions, outlet noise, mood, etc.), could also appear rather soft around the edges - even veiled.

 

Through wifi (router placed only some 2 meters from the sMS-200) there's a rather audible lift in vitality, clarity and low end solidity/presence, and overall the presentation has a less restrained, more effortless appeal. Sitting down to take a listen these impressions are instant, and there's a general and spontaneous pleasantness to the sound; I just very simply like the "nature" of what I hear, and while this may at first exclude a more analytical judgment, when such is finally made, the initial "pleasantness" is only confirmed.

 

What strikes me is the consistency of the wifi-impressions, now going through the 4th day, and even 24/192kHz files have played with no dropouts/stuttering whatsoever (I have though experienced very rare "clicks" during playback, strangely only through 16/44.1kHz files). A few times I've had some trouble finding the sMS-200 from my control point, but other than that no issues to speak of.

 

In conclusion (though my evaluation of wifi is ongoing), I very much like the overall balance of the sound through wifi, and it's my preferred configuration as is. Now I need to try out ROON, and possibly even think about a Paul Hynes PSU inclusion...

 

Tried many different ways of bridging. Bridging itself is working, but stuttering starts 3 seconds into any song. Will try PCI lan card instead of TP-Link USB ethernet adapter. Thanks for helpful suggestions. By the way, I upgraded sms-200 to v3.2 and find significant sound improvement. Is it just electricity on quiet Sunday? SMS-200 sounds better than ever. Even without direct connection, happy listening.

 

Last Friday I upgraded to v3.2 as well, but through Thursday (after installing and using the wifi-dongle) have noticed no real sonic changes to speak of. Perhaps others, like Alan, feels differently?

[phusis]

[...]

 

It might be dynamic with strong bass, but I perceived a slight, rosy veil to the sound. Like I heard earlier when I connected my USB-Wifi adapter directly to the SOTM200.

 

[...]

 

Compared to my earlier, wired LAN-connection (with the iSO-CAT6 between router and sMS-200), I hear no "rosa-tinted" veiling through the WiFi-connection. On the contrary I found there to be a slight un-veiling even, and no tonal alteration to speak of. But we do agree on the dynamics and strong bass (without there being a bassy prevalence as such).

 

Am I one of the only ones thinking the WiFi-route holds great sonic potential? Perhaps, as has been mentioned before, it's too simple a connection-approach (instead more commenly referred to as "convenience") to gain significant following - prior to sonic evaluation, that is..

 

Have yet to try out bridged LAN-connection, I must add.

[phusis]

So to be clear you are referring to using wifi for the connection from your PC to the rest of your network? If so, there has been some discussion on this and as all things in this hobby there is no clear consensus on if wifi or wired is better. I personally tried to have the best of both worlds by having a wireless bridge in my music that is wired to my PC running HQP and Roon.

 

Back on topic and regarding wifi, perhaps try connecting the SMS200 or microrendu to a wireless bridge? I guess that would defeat the purpose of a direct connection but maybe having the PC communicate with the SMS200 or microrendu via wifi even if its through a bridge may be better than a direct ethernet connection?

 

Yes, I've inserted an Edimax WiFi-dongle in a USB-port on my sMS-200, which is then "communicating" directly with the router.

 

Thanks for suggesting the wireless bridge. Any sonic reports on this type of connection?

 

And indeed, yes, I can see (from the few reports I've read) there's no uniform opinion on the sound of the WiFi-route, but I guess I'm surprised by the lack of positive accounts..

[phusis]

Latest system upgrade VO.3.3 for sMS-200 now available:

 

Version : V0.3.3

- Date : 06-02-2017

- Optimize bootloader to impove sound quality

- Fix samba mount bug

- Add defence code for abnormal cases

- Modify APIs for audio cards

- Modify user manual link

[phusis]

I prefer the sound before .. the latest upgrade kill the sound.

Can i come back before this update?

 

Can you describe in more detail how the sound has changed? As romaz replied earlier you can't revert updates.

 

Try contacting May Park from SOtM and address your problem: [email protected]

[phusis]

Hi GreenLeo,

 

I stated my LPS-1 experience with both of these NAAs in my post:

 

With the stock sMS-200 vs the mR and with each powered by a switching 9V iFi PSU, I actually prefer the mR. The sMS-200 sounds more detailed but the presentation is quite thin and anemic whereas the mR has nicer body. When powered by the LPS-1, this thinness improves considerably and while both the mR and sMS-200 benefit greatly from a superior low-impedance PSU like the LPS-1, the sMS-200 scales better to my ears -- it is more resolute.

 

I want to reiterate that while the Paul Hynes SR7 is something very special (and not as expensive as you might think given the performance it provides), by no means is the LPS-1 something to look down on. With the exception of Paul's SR-7, I have yet to hear a PSU sound as good as my LPS-1 with either the sMS-200 or mR. In fact, I have a 2nd LPS-1 on order and so it will continue to play an important role in my chain. I would wholeheartedly recommend the LPS-1 for either of these NAAs to anyone.

 

Thanks for your sonic impressions, romaz.

 

Have you tried out SOtM's battery supply (or any other battery PSU) with the sMS-200? I'm using it myself, but am considering Paul Hynes' SR5, for a couple of reasons (to also power an upcoming NUC for bridged LAN-connection).

[phusis]

27 minutes ago, ElviaCaprice said:

I think your making far to much of the cable.  Just keep it short as possible and use star quad, screw on connectors are fine when possible.  As demonsrated in the DIY dc cable thread.  

Also note, with additional outputs to the SR7, it becomes closer to the pricing of the sotm supply per output.  

 

 

Perhaps more than the significance of the DC-cable is the importance of the power cable used with the SOtM sPS-500. A nicely made DIY power cable will do small wonders instead of the run-of-the-mill power cable that follows the sPS-500 - as I've found out in my own setup. 

 

Seems to me though the most fair comparison would be to use two sPS-500's - one for the tXUSBultra and one for the sMS-200ultra - when compared to the Hynes SR7 used in this specific case, and care taken with cables to the sPS-500's as well. I believe two SOtM's will still be cheaper..

[phusis]

8 hours ago, romaz said:

... I would choose SOtM's standard sMS-200 paired with the SR7 over the sMS-200ultra when powered by my HDPlex.

 

Interesting finding, Romaz. If you could, then how would you rate the comparison of the regular sMS-200 + SR7 against the sMS-200ultra + sPS-500?

 

If I'm not in the need of a multi rail version, what's the sonic difference between the standard SR7 and its "DR" iteration (perhaps I should address this to Mr. Hynes)? 

 

Lastly, how many hours does your sPS-500 have under the hood? I'm asking, because I've found the sPS-500 (which I'm using myself with a standard sMS-200) to be "sensitive" with burn-in. That is, I find it needs 2-300 hours to settle in, and possible even more. Mine has some 400+ hours as is.

 

Thanks for your (and @austinpop's) extremely informative posts, which are always helpful and inspiring.  

 

And, bon voyage  

 

[phusis]

14 minutes ago, Bamber said:

My impressions from tonights tX-USBultra (6.5v-9v) tests.

 

sPS-500 set at 9v is better than 7v.

 

The LPS-1 sounds much better than the sPS-500 (at any power setting).

 

 

 

Thanks for your input, Bamber. There's a lot of "better" being uttered though, and what does it actually mean? Not to sound disrespectful or unappreciative, but perhaps some descriptive phrases would help getting an actual bearing on the sonic differences here. And with all due respect to posters romaz, austinpop and others who're prominently laying bare their very well articulated impressions, it's ok to differ with their sonic findings (if such is the case) and strongly form ones own opinion or ways to come about describing what you're hearing. Or maybe a lot of people here just agrees wholeheartedly with one another, which is perfectly fine. But perhaps some rather more articulated sonic impressions other than "better" or "worse" would draw a clearer picture, as well as lending a sense of consistency.

[phusis]

18 minutes ago, Bamber said:

I'm not being influenced by any of these other posters as you infer.

 

Sorry for putting it that way. 

 

18 minutes ago, Bamber said:

I can type up a full report when I have more time.

 

That would be much appreciated, thanks. 

[phusis]

17 hours ago, austinpop said:

 

As @Confused correctly points out, every configuration is different. Since your view is that your USB device downstream of the sMS-200ultra will not consume much current, then I think the empirical data points are in your favor. In fact, I don't believe anyone has yet reported a situation where an LPS-1 was insufficient.

 

 

 

Well, we have now had both @romaz and @Bamber report that, while the sPS-500 sounds very good for an SMPS, they ultimately preferred the SQ of the LPS-1 over the sPS-500.

 

Steve Plaskin over at audiostream.com favored the sPS-500 (with 9V output) over the LPS-1 in conjunction with the sMS-200ultra. And, with the sPS-500 the sMS-200ultra can also be run in 12V mode (optional unit) - by many the preferred voltage setting here. Bear in mind also that poster @romaz impressions of the sPS-500 were found with that PSU only having few hours under the hood. From experience I know the sPS-500 benefits from rather substantial burn-in, i.e. some 3-400 hours. Poster @Bamber found the LPS-1 "better," yes, but that was the only word used to come about his impressions; surely we need some elaborated views describing (i.e. an actual, descriptive approach than merely "better") the sonics of both fully run-in units before any assessments can be made. 

[phusis]

1 hour ago, ElviaCaprice said:

 

Seeing that Roy (Romaz) has gone with a USB only stream and found it superior to any added Ethernet leg.  It's probably a good time to move on from this thread.  No wonder Sonore is so vehemently against the master clocked SOtM components.  Basically it renders their Ethernet achievements meaningless.  There is still room for someone to build a proper mobo. 

Really the solution has gotten much simpler with the SCLK EX board.  I hope SOtM comes up with a fix on my NUC.  Then my system becomes much simpler.

NUC w/TXBEXP PCIe card, 4 sclk ex clocks, direct to Chord 2Qute.  All powered by Paul Hynes SR7 or LPS-1.  Master clock upgrade to follow.

 

I find the Ethernet approach to have (long) reached its "saturation point" in regards to the growing slew of cables, clocks, PSU's and what not, almost all of them ever upgradable over short intervals. Even with the sonic refinements here made (in which this thread has been truly inspiring with all the contributions from its posters and the willingness in particularly from SOtM to participate on the basis of this with product development and individual wishes) the complexity and relative expense of many components can seem daunting and over the top (yet still cheaper than the all-out music servers like Aurender and others). Of course it's up to each one to assess when to say "enough is enough," and still be able to achieve great SQ through this solution with a simpler, less ambitious setup. Initially my interest with the Ethernet approach came with the advent of small network players (mR and sMS-200) and their simplified, dedicated audio-only computers and lesser power need, but it soon branched into a more sophisticated development with many areas to attend care to; in itself a fascinating process to follow (at least viewed from a distance). From my chair I'll stay with the current state of my Ethernet-based setup for a longer while (save for a few tweaks within it), simply for the reason being that it now sounds rather natural and uninhibited - while still being relatively simple component-wise - and that it has an easy, reliable and no-fuss use. Any development from this point in the future ahead would necessitate the outlook for more simplicity and an obvious advance in SQ - a combination of which may not be easily attained. One should not be blinded by the care needed within a one-component, USB-only streaming setup (what would be the OS to use here?), but the "downsizing" of cables and other separate components here is certainly a winning trait. However, it hardly "renders their [SOtM's] Ethernet achievements meaningless," on the contrary I'd say. The developments here have been more than worthwhile. 

 

And btw, any act of Sonore being "vehemently against" a component choice of SOtM would seem to have only something to do with SOtM being a very competitive company. 

[phusis]

Soon about to be building a new musik server (/HTPC), as the old, current one is pushing beyond 10 years. Yeah, I know - I hear the blasphemous screams from CA-members in reaction to a largely non-optimized HTPC (apart from Fidelizer 8.4) this old for anything approaching audiophile sonics, but, oh well, times flies..

 

Initially, a few years back, I had intended for its retirement as a music server, but about a year ago I sold my previous sMS-200 Ultra (12V w/copper cable upgrades) + sPS-500, because I found my existing Audiophilleo 2 + PurePower to equal, and in some respects better the SOtM combo via named old PC-server (YMMV, of course). Wouldn't you know, but it did.

 

I now intend to upgrade the software part as well, to JPLAY FEMTO for music-only duties, and remain on the JRiver MC25 platform for movies (@Marcin_gps, I'll be looking for your server-tips and the innards to be used here). Used to run JPLAY (Classic?) through JRiver, but that ended with the latter's support withdrawal of the former - not that there really was any to begin with. Being I'm a JPLAY owner though will make use of the price reduction on the FEMTO. 

 

Thanks for this thread.