Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Message added by The Computer Audiophile

Important and useful information about this thread

Posting guidelines

History and index of useful posts

Most important: please realize this thread is about bleeding edge experimentation and discovery. No one has The Answer™. If you are not into tweaking, just know that you can have a musically satisfying system without doing any of the nutty things we do here.

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, romaz said:

 

Others may have different results but here are mine.  I used to own an Entreq Poseidon and a loom of Atlantis grounding cables (I still own a few and if someone wants to buy mine, PM me).  They did wonders for my former TotalDac d1-monobloc.  When my DAVE first came in, I grounded it with my Entreq Poseidon via DAVE's XLR output (which is always live unless you're listening to headphones) and I heard no improvement at all.  I tried it again with a Synergistic Research grounding block and their Hi-Def grounding cable and I heard no improvement.  I tried it again with Sound Galleries' new D2 grounding block that I purchased in Munich this past May and again, no difference.

 

Now, with my music server, the D2 grounding block results in a very noticeable improvement.

 

Sound Galleries D2: are these the Taiko D2 in Panzerholtz blocks? Do they outperform Entreq?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, austinpop said:

@romaz

 

You are clearly the most interesting man in computer audio! 

 

I'm guessing you don't always drink beer, but when you do, you prefer one that is "well-balanced, resolute and transparent." 

 

I will be buying you said beer when we meet up in RMAF. :D Or any libation of your choice!

 

Every time I read his posts I want to buy a DAVE or something he mentions.  Maybe next year, or I'll wait for the next iteration from Chord.

 

I did get my Hynes SR7 in the other day.  I still have to put some time in with it, but if what I'm hearing now is attributable to the SR7 and nothing else...wow, I'm floored.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

Every time I read his posts I want to buy a DAVE or something he mentions.

Alas, my private jet is a money pit.

Pareto Audio AMD 7700 Server --> Berkeley Alpha USB --> Jeff Rowland Aeris --> Jeff Rowland 625 S2 --> Focal Utopia 3 Diablos with 2 x Focal Electra SW 1000 BE subs

 

i7-6700K/Windows 10  --> EVGA Nu Audio Card --> Focal CMS50's 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

I've put more money into my 2 channel system over the past year and a half than probably my entire life.

More power to you, and congratulations on the SR7.

Pareto Audio AMD 7700 Server --> Berkeley Alpha USB --> Jeff Rowland Aeris --> Jeff Rowland 625 S2 --> Focal Utopia 3 Diablos with 2 x Focal Electra SW 1000 BE subs

 

i7-6700K/Windows 10  --> EVGA Nu Audio Card --> Focal CMS50's 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, lmitche said:

Can someone point me to the specifications for the S7?  

 

The SR7MR uses a custom manufactured mains transformer with up to 500VA rating depending on the overall rail requirements.

 

The error amplifier used in the voltage regulator modules has the following specification :-
Noise voltage < 0.5 nanovolts root Hz
Operating Bandwidth < 300 Mhz
Supply line rejection < 80 dB DC to 100 KHz
Output impedance < 3 milliohms DC to 100 KHz
Transient response and settling time < 100 nanoseconds

 

For fixed output voltage versions the SR7 provides 125W and the SR7MR chassis can support up to 250W spread across the rails.  The SR7 can support one 10A module.

 

The output voltage and output current can be specified within this power rating using the formulae :-
V = W/I
I = W/V

 

For variable output voltage versions of the power supplies, set at the maximum output
voltage of the range, the SR7 provides 125W.

 

The SR3, SR5 and SR7 single rail supplies are also available in DR versions where two of the high performance voltage regulators are cascaded to a give supply line and rectification interference rejection exceeding 150 dB from DC to 100 KHz. This provides lower overall noise levels than the standard power supplies and better dynamic performance.


Power supply dimensions are :-
SR3 – W = 110mm, H = 50mm, D = 170mm
SR5 – W = 224mm, H = 90mm, D = 260mm
SR7, SR7MR2, SR7MR3 – W = 224mm, H = 130mm, D = 260mm
SR7MR4 – W = 224mm, H = 130mm, D = 340mm

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

 

The SR7MR uses a custom manufactured mains transformer with up to 500VA rating depending on the overall rail requirements.

 

The error amplifier used in the voltage regulator modules has the following specification :-
Noise voltage < 0.5 nanovolts root Hz
Operating Bandwidth < 300 Mhz
Supply line rejection < 80 dB DC to 100 KHz
Output impedance < 3 milliohms DC to 100 KHz
Transient response and settling time < 100 nanoseconds

 

For fixed output voltage versions the SR7 provides 125W and the SR7MR chassis can support up to 250W spread across the rails.  The SR7 can support one 10A module.

 

The output voltage and output current can be specified within this power rating using the formulae :-
V = W/I
I = W/V

 

For variable output voltage versions of the power supplies, set at the maximum output
voltage of the range, the SR7 provides 125W.

 

The SR3, SR5 and SR7 single rail supplies are also available in DR versions where two of the high performance voltage regulators are cascaded to a give supply line and rectification interference rejection exceeding 150 dB from DC to 100 KHz. This provides lower overall noise levels than the standard power supplies and better dynamic performance.


Power supply dimensions are :-
SR3 – W = 110mm, H = 50mm, D = 170mm
SR5 – W = 224mm, H = 90mm, D = 260mm
SR7, SR7MR2, SR7MR3 – W = 224mm, H = 130mm, D = 260mm
SR7MR4 – W = 224mm, H = 130mm, D = 340mm

Thanks Johnseye,

 

I was curious to learn if the Paul Hynes LPSes are powerful enough to support an Hqplayer upsampling machine.  Looks like the answer is no.

 

Your quick, clear and comprehensive response is appreciated.

Pareto Audio aka nuckleheadaudio

Link to comment
Just now, lmitche said:

Thanks Johnseye,

 

I was curious to learn if the Paul Hynes LPSes are powerful enough to support an Hqplayer upsampling machine.  Looks like the answer is no.

 

Your quick and comprehensive response is appreciated.

 

That depends.  I plan on using HQPlayer to upsample.  I won't be going to DSD 512, but I'll be upsampling to PCM 352.  I'll let you know how things go.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, auricgoldfinger said:

 

How much power do you require for HQP upsampling?

 

Larry may know more, but I think it's related to the proc used.  DSD 512  probably requires a 91-95w proc.  I'm using a 35w and am not coming close to that utilization.  I think my server draws about 25w total, but have no current interest in DSD.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Johnseye said:

 

Larry may know more, but I think it's related to the proc used.  DSD 512  probably requires a 91-95w proc.  I'm using a 35w and am not coming close to that utilization.  I think my server draws about 25w total, but have no current interest in DSD.

Yes, I use a 95 watt i7-6700k processor for dsd512 upsampling with Hqplayer.  There are likely to be 65 watt processors that will also do dsd512 successfully.  

 

Personally, I haven't seen much first hand evidence that these relatively low power consumption ranges have any correlation with negative sound quality. I have owned both 6 watt embedded cpu motherboards and dedicated low power streamers, and will take the SQ of the ATX SMPS power eating monster over the low power alternatives any day of the week. No question there are many HW/SW tweaks that are needed to pull this off, but they can be cheaply done and the results are stunning.

Pareto Audio aka nuckleheadaudio

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, austinpop said:

Ethernet cables revisited

 

As y'all know, I had reported quite a while back that the SOtM dCBL-Cat7 ethernet cable improved SQ more than the other cables I had on hand - BJC Cat 6a, and Supra Cat8.

 

I also mentioned that the price of the dCBL-Cat7 ($500 for 1.5m) was a sore point for me. It's funny, because I do hear differences in cables. With USB cables, I liked the Lush over the Curious, with power cables, I recently confirmed that the PS Audio AC-12 and Cardas Clear M power cables sounded better than the basic Pangea's that I was using. But somehow expensive ethernet cables get my goat! 9_9

 

Anyway, I've caved. I recently bought Ghent's JSSG Ethernet cabe with Metz plugs, in the hope that it would match up to the dCBL-Cat7. Sadly, no such luck. The JSSG is a nice cable, about on par with the Supra. But compared to it, the dCBL-Cat7 is a significant step up.

 

I guess I'm getting one.

 

It's all about the filter, and Lee makes good filters.

 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, austinpop said:

 

QX-5: Very Initial, tentative listening impressions

 

I have now had the QX-5 in place in my system for just over 2 days. This is a fully burned-in unit (although I'll reconfirm with my dealer once again). At this point, please treat anything I say as tentative. My conclusions may change as I play with this some more.

 

First off - this is a beautiful looking and sounding piece! Obviously, I am partial to the Ayre sound, being a very pleased customer of the Codex. I will get to Codex vs. QX-5 comparisons in the next few days. For now, I will only say that the QX-5, playing in my system, is sounding very, very good.

 

One thing I really like is the absence of a bunch of fiddly knobs and settings, especially digital filters. I may be a Luddite, but I hate filter options, because I always feel like I should be tinkering to find the best sound for each piece of music I play. Not necessary on the QX-5. The only tuning I did was to select "Music" mode for the USB and network inputs, the only two I've used so far. This mode, from what I understand, essentially uses data buffering to allow the DAC to use its own internal Morion crystal clock to clock in the data.

 

Since I suspect some folks from the QX-5 thread may read this, here is my chain again pictorially. The set of components between my Roon server and my DAC are what I refer to affectionately as my trifecta medley.

 

59c1eb19b4590_UltraTopology.thumb.png.46e5108e136c57968d181cb0ce6554ee.png

 

To reiterate the purpose of this exercise: I want to consider several scenarios, where the QX-5 replaces different subsets of my current chain:

  1. QX-5 as a straight DAC replacement for my Codex ($1795), either via:
    • USB (this config costs $7650)
    • S/PDIF or AES (this config costs $6950)
  2. QX-5 as an Ethernet DAC (this config costs $8950 (or $8250 without USB). This would completely bypass my trifecta medley.
  3. QX-5 as and Ethernet DAC AND headphone amp. This would also replace my Cavalli headphone amp.

Wouldn't that be nice! If scenario 3 worked out, the incremental cost of the QX-5 for me would be minimal after I sold off the rest of the chain.

 

Comparison 1: QX-5 (Ethernet) vs. QX-5 (USB) with trifecta medley

 

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but this one is no contest. All the optimizations in the USB chain contained in the trifecta medley, still apply. Bigly. The USB chain just has the usual improvements I've described in the context of the trifecta: larger image in all 3 dimensions, better resolution, instruments are more dimensional, more air, easier to disambiguate from each other, etc. etc.

 

I even gave the network input a boost, by feeding it from my reclocked Zyxel switch, and using the dCBL-Cat7 cable. This helped, but could not raise the SQ to anywhere near the USB chain.

 

Reflecting on this a bit: it is interesting that while the QX-5 has gone to extraordinary lengths to implement ultra-low-phase-noise data clocks, sourced from Morion, they have not done anything like that for the system clocks. By system clocks, I mean the 24 and 25 MHz clocks used for the USB, Ethernet and motherboards. Interestingly, the system clocks are where the trifecta medley focuses.

 

So it is perhaps not surprising that the trifecta medley + the QX-5 is the amalgam of the clock improvements. @Charles Hansen has said that for them to apply the same level of ultra-low-phase-noise system clocks would add prohibitively to the cost. Perhaps for now, the digital pasta approach, while messy, is the more economical way to nirvana.

 

Comparison 2: QX-5 (USB with trifecta medley) - internal headphone amp vs. Cavalli Liquid Gold

 

Here again, it was no contest. The QX-5's headphone amp, like the Codex's is excellent. But the Cavalli is on a different plane.

 

Note that I was using my HD800 (with Cardas Clear XLR cable) and Focal Elear (with Moon Audio Black Dragon XLR cable). I have a nifty Black Dragon XLR to 2x3.5mm balanced adapter for the Codex, which also works on the QX-5.

 

On its own, the QX-5 headphone amp sounds wonderful. Like the Codex, it does tend to max out when driving the HD800 with classical pieces with high dynamic range. The Cavalli, though, is a beast with a delicate touch. As most of you know, I'm a Mahler fan, along with other large orchestral music. The Cavalli renders Mahler in a way the inbuilt amp just cannot. And it sounds more refined doing it.

 

Initial Conclusions 

 

The QX-5 will not be replacing my Cavalli headphone amp, or my digital trifecta medley.

 

Next up is a much harder comparison and sell - how much better is the QX-5 as a pure DAC, relative to my existing Codex?

 

Stay tuned.

Very good Rajiv,

What I suspected (from the hype) would be the outcome but good to see you make the comparison.  For the price I doubt you get the QX-5.  I think I would go with the DAVE instead if your going to spend that kind of money or wait for future DAC upgrade.

(JRiver) Jetway barebones NUC (mod 3 sCLK-EX, Cybershaft OP 14)  (PH SR7) => mini pcie adapter to PCIe 1X => tXUSBexp PCIe card (mod sCLK-EX) (PH SR7) => (USPCB) Chord DAVE => Omega Super 8XRS/REL t5i  (All powered thru Topaz Isolation Transformer)

Link to comment
7 hours ago, austinpop said:

 

QX-5: Very Initial, tentative listening impressions

 

I have now had the QX-5 in place in my system for just over 2 days. This is a fully burned-in unit (although I'll reconfirm with my dealer once again). At this point, please treat anything I say as tentative. My conclusions may change as I play with this some more.

 

First off - this is a beautiful looking and sounding piece! Obviously, I am partial to the Ayre sound, being a very pleased customer of the Codex. I will get to Codex vs. QX-5 comparisons in the next few days. For now, I will only say that the QX-5, playing in my system, is sounding very, very good.

 

One thing I really like is the absence of a bunch of fiddly knobs and settings, especially digital filters. I may be a Luddite, but I hate filter options, because I always feel like I should be tinkering to find the best sound for each piece of music I play. Not necessary on the QX-5. The only tuning I did was to select "Music" mode for the USB and network inputs, the only two I've used so far. This mode, from what I understand, essentially uses data buffering to allow the DAC to use its own internal Morion crystal clock to clock in the data.

 

Since I suspect some folks from the QX-5 thread may read this, here is my chain again pictorially. The set of components between my Roon server and my DAC are what I refer to affectionately as my trifecta medley.

 

59c1eb19b4590_UltraTopology.thumb.png.46e5108e136c57968d181cb0ce6554ee.png

 

To reiterate the purpose of this exercise: I want to consider several scenarios, where the QX-5 replaces different subsets of my current chain:

  1. QX-5 as a straight DAC replacement for my Codex ($1795), either via:
    • USB (this config costs $7650)
    • S/PDIF or AES (this config costs $6950)
  2. QX-5 as an Ethernet DAC (this config costs $8950 (or $8250 without USB). This would completely bypass my trifecta medley.
  3. QX-5 as and Ethernet DAC AND headphone amp. This would also replace my Cavalli headphone amp.

Wouldn't that be nice! If scenario 3 worked out, the incremental cost of the QX-5 for me would be minimal after I sold off the rest of the chain.

 

Comparison 1: QX-5 (Ethernet) vs. QX-5 (USB) with trifecta medley

 

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but this one is no contest. All the optimizations in the USB chain contained in the trifecta medley, still apply. Bigly. The USB chain just has the usual improvements I've described in the context of the trifecta: larger image in all 3 dimensions, better resolution, instruments are more dimensional, more air, easier to disambiguate from each other, etc. etc.

 

I even gave the network input a boost, by feeding it from my reclocked Zyxel switch, and using the dCBL-Cat7 cable. This helped, but could not raise the SQ to anywhere near the USB chain.

 

Reflecting on this a bit: it is interesting that while the QX-5 has gone to extraordinary lengths to implement ultra-low-phase-noise data clocks, sourced from Morion, they have not done anything like that for the system clocks. By system clocks, I mean the 24 and 25 MHz clocks used for the USB, Ethernet and motherboards. Interestingly, the system clocks are where the trifecta medley focuses.

 

So it is perhaps not surprising that the trifecta medley + the QX-5 is the amalgam of the clock improvements. @Charles Hansen has said that for them to apply the same level of ultra-low-phase-noise system clocks would add prohibitively to the cost. Perhaps for now, the digital pasta approach, while messy, is the more economical way to nirvana.

 

Comparison 2: QX-5 (USB with trifecta medley) - internal headphone amp vs. Cavalli Liquid Gold

 

Here again, it was no contest. The QX-5's headphone amp, like the Codex's is excellent. But the Cavalli is on a different plane.

 

Note that I was using my HD800 (with Cardas Clear XLR cable) and Focal Elear (with Moon Audio Black Dragon XLR cable). I have a nifty Black Dragon XLR to 2x3.5mm balanced adapter for the Codex, which also works on the QX-5.

 

On its own, the QX-5 headphone amp sounds wonderful. Like the Codex, it does tend to max out when driving the HD800 with classical pieces with high dynamic range. The Cavalli, though, is a beast with a delicate touch. As most of you know, I'm a Mahler fan, along with other large orchestral music. The Cavalli renders Mahler in a way the inbuilt amp just cannot. And it sounds more refined doing it.

 

Initial Conclusions 

 

The QX-5 will not be replacing my Cavalli headphone amp, or my digital trifecta medley.

 

Next up is a much harder comparison and sell - how much better is the QX-5 as a pure DAC, relative to my existing Codex?

 

Stay tuned.

 

Thank you @austinpop!

 

So while very good, sadly the QX-5 Ethernet and USB inputs on their own are no match for the digital spagetti solution.  As I understand from your review, the superior Morion sourced data clock inside the QX-5 is not enough in this case as the unit lacks system clocks of such quality for the USB and Ethernet, and that’s where the reclocking solution from SOtM basically rules at this point.

 

So back to the drawing board in search for a superior one-box solution :( 

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, limniscate said:

At the end of May, a few days after @ElviaCaprice

 

I don't want to digress down this path again, but what should have been explained to all those who placed orders for an SR7 is that Paul prioritized Elvia's SR7 since he was going to Costa Rica.  That pushed everyone's orders going back at least a month and a half, if not more,  out.  Hopefully that bit of info gives some understanding of the timing of people's orders when compared to others.

 

I'll post a separate review of the SR7 after I get some more time with it, sometime next week(end).  My initial, tentative, subject to change thoughts on it are that the noise reduction benefited from this LPSU allows for unprecedented clarity and articulation of the music.  It allows for increased depth, extension and separation of the instruments.

 

I say that with a caveat because so far instead of just using an LPS-1 on my SMS-200 I'm now using the SR7 for my server (previously powered by an HDPlex supply) and SMS-200 while the LPS-1 is on my switch.  That's two sources changed from switching to linear and one theoretically improved upon by going from LPS-1 to SR7.  I also powered just the SMS-200 and switch by the SR7 and the ISO Regen by the LPS-1 and that had a very similar impact.  The IR is another factor all together which changes the sound in and of itself so as you can see there are several variables to consider.

 

My SR7 is a 2 rail with an adjustable range of voltages.  That allows for even more variables as I could run the SMS-200 at 9v or 12v.  Additionally, my rail 1 has a DR option.  I'll get to testing it all eventually.

 

The best conclusion one could make at this point is that clean power at as many sources in the chain as possible provides the lowest noise reduction and best possible sound.  We already knew that, but the level to which I can hear a difference is not micro.  It's not quite macro, but it's close.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...