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

[JJ Braham]

16 hours ago, elan120 said:

I wonder if this is the same switch that this other thread talked about, which appear not to be a SOtM designed product.

 

 

Yes, those are the switches I saw at the SOtM room. I didn't know they were not made by SOtM. Back at the RMAF, when I asked about them, a guy came and started explaining the differences to me, and he kept saying that the one that cost $850 had the same clock as the one in the SOtM master clock.

 

I'm glad May has clarified this in the other thread. Sorry about the confusion.

[AmusedToD]

2 minutes ago, JJ Braham said:

Yes, those are the switches I saw at the SOtM room. I didn't know they were not made by SOtM. Back at the RMAF, when I asked about them, a guy came and started explaining the differences to me, and he kept saying that the one that cost $850 had the same clock as the one in the SOtM master clock.

 

I'm glad May has clarified this in the other thread. Sorry about the confusion.

 

Did we establish who makes these switches, do they have a website, specifications, etc?

[austinpop]

4 minutes ago, d_elm said:

@austinpop, assuming the attention to clocking in all network components is about lower electrical noise (you have not concluded this) have you tried fibre right before the renderer ?  There is the problem of noise generated by the downstream FMC but SOtM can modify an MC100CM or MC200CM with a linear regulator, improved capacitors, and replace the clock to use an external  sCLK-EX.  This could be interesting until the day we have renderers with fibre input, if ever.

 

That's a great point, and bears explanation.

 

Before I started down the journey with this thread, I DID have FMCs. I had a pair of MC200CM's right before my endpoint at the time (Aries Mini). I was also powering the downstream FMC with an LPS-1.

 

The key difference for me was bridging - the thing that Roy started this thread with. Once I moved to a bridged configuration, I found my FMCs did were not necessary for SQ. See my post here: https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/30376-a-novel-way-to-massively-improve-the-sq-of-computer-audio-streaming/?do=findComment&comment=620410 . I subsequently sold my FMCs with their Jameco LPS warts. Good times, good times!

 

 

Now, modifying the FMCs for sCLK-EX, like my modded switch, is indeed an interesting approach, and I am curious to hear people's experiences with it, especially in a bridged configuration.

 

For me, that goes on the list of potential things to do with the next sCLK-EX board/Ultra component that I buy (if I do).

[austinpop]

7 minutes ago, JJ Braham said:

Yes, those are the switches I saw at the SOtM room. I didn't know they were not made by SOtM. Back at the RMAF, when I asked about them, a guy came and started explaining the differences to me, and he kept saying that the one that cost $850 had the same clock as the one in the SOtM master clock.

 

I'm glad May has clarified this in the other thread. Sorry about the confusion.

 

Yeah, it was kinda weird. There was a guy at the SOtM room, who seemed to be part of their squad, but not really. He also had a tendency to lurk around any conversations we were having with May and Lee, which was a bit... odd.

[afrancois]

Just now, austinpop said:

 

Questions about the MC-3+ USB for you:

• The PSU is not linear?
• When driven by a Ref 10 reference clock
  • This improves the 2 sample data clocks, I've read. But -
  • does it also improve the USB interface clock? If not, the USB clock remains a weak link in the chain.

Perhaps these are questions best posed to @julian.david.

 

OTOH - if anyone wants to lend us a Ref 10, that would be quite acceptable.

My MC3+ USB is powered by a LPS-1 set at 5V. I’ve removed the internal SMPS. This enhanced the transparency quite a bit. Between the sMS-200 ultra, I have an IR with two USPCB’s. The ultra also has a 75ohm connector for my future REF10. All devices are powered by 4 LPS’s in total. I don’t know how the USB input from the MC3+ is clocked. Many emphasis has been put on the importance of clocks and rightly so, but what I have accomplished with the 3M paper is not to be underestimated. Waiting for the right moment to elaborate on this...

[JJ Braham]

1 hour ago, austinpop said:

Ultimately I do these comparisons for my own explorations and my own system. My current DAC prefers USB. So the only question I can go deep on is how well the NB does USB.

With regards to that, the other day some fellow audiophiles and me were having a DAC comparison, and a friend arrived with his new (for him) Ayre Universal Player and DAC (now discontinued), and aside from it sounding very good, what amazed me was how well it played audio from a Macbook Pro laptop directly from a $50 USB cable (I believe it was a mid-priced Wireworld). I mean, the difference between spdif and USB inputs (without any help from the likes of IsoRegen or txUSBultra) was very small, whereas with most DAC's we've tried the difference is not small at all.

 

Ayre must be doing something right with regards to its USB inputs.

[austinpop]

3 minutes ago, afrancois said:

My MC3+ USB is powered by a LPS-1 set at 5V. I’ve removed the internal SMPS. This enhanced the transparency quite a bit. Between the sMS-200 ultra, I have an IR with two USPCB’s. The ultra also has a 75ohm connector for my future REF10. All devices are powered by 4 LPS’s in total. I don’t know how the USB input from the MC3+ is clocked. Many emphasis has been put on the importance of clocks and rightly so, but what I have accomplished with the 3M paper is not to be underestimated. Waiting for the right moment to elaborate on this...

 

Please do.

[austinpop]

2 minutes ago, JJ Braham said:

Ayre must be doing something right with regards to its USB inputs.

 

That is Charlie's assertion, that all the inputs sound equally good, specifically on the QX-5. OTOH, he does wax most lyrical about the synchronous inputs (coaxial, Toslink, and AES), and how they've implemented an asynchronous internal design to be immune to jitter on the incoming stream.

 

Since I've not actually done a head-to-head of the 2 inputs in a controlled way, I try not make any assertions - just report on what I was actually able to hear.

[afrancois]

26 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

Please do.

Up until now I've used 5 sheets of 3M AB5100SHF. Let me tel you where I put the sheets:

- underneath the rubber feat of every LPS-1 (glued to the surface on which the LPS-1's are resting)

- on top of every LPS-1 (glued)

- underneath and above the motherboard of my headphone amp (Violectric V200)

- on the back of my AQVOX (glued) 

- inside and on the back of my MC3+ USB

- on both sides of my ISO Regen

- and the biggest benefit of all : on the wall close to all the spaghetti wiring

 

I should probably try to make a picture so that you can see what I mean.

 

While modding my MC3+ USB brought a lot of transparency, the 3M sheet brought a lot of body while keeping the fine details.

I think we don't realize enough that the spaghetti solution with all the different components and power supply wiring has become quite susceptible to EMI/RFI.  Anyhow this seemed to be the case in my system which is located in the garage (except the DAC and headphone amplifier)

 

 

[zoltan]

2 minutes ago, afrancois said:

Up until now I've used 5 sheets of 3M AB5100SHF. Let me tel you where I put the sheets:

- underneath the rubber feat of every LPS-1 (glued to the surface on which the LPS-1's are resting)

- on top of every LPS-1 (glued)

- underneath and above the motherboard of my headphone amp (Violectric V200)

- on the back of my AQVOX (glued) 

- inside and on the back of my MC3+ USB

- on both sides of my ISO Regen

- and the biggest benefit of all : on the wall close to all the spaghetti wiring

 

I should probably try to make a picture so that you can see what I mean.

 

While modding my MC3+ USB brought a lot of transparency, the 3M sheet brought a lot of body while keeping the fine details.

I think we don't realize enough that the spaghetti solution with all the different components and power supply wiring it has become quite susceptible to EMI/RFI.  Anyhow this seemed to be the case in my system which is located in the garage (except the DAC and headphone amplifier)

 

 

So you didn't use them on any component parts, such as the clock in the MC3+USB? 
Also, as you say that the biggest effect was on the wall near the cables, I was thinking perhaps carefully wrapping the cables or use paper tubes wrapped in 3M sheet and thread the cables through them. What do you think? 

[afrancois]

12 minutes ago, zoltan said:

So you didn't use them on any component parts, such as the clock in the MC3+USB? 
Also, as you say that the biggest effect was on the wall near the cables, I was thinking perhaps carefully wrapping the cables or use paper tubes wrapped in 3M sheet and thread the cables through them. What do you think? 

No the sheets are never in direct contact with electronics. I've concentrated on the influence of EMI/RFI entering the devices. Wrapping the paper around the cables would be hard to do because it cracks.

I forgot to mention that the 3M is also around my network isolator EMO-EN30, underneath the sPS-500 and underneath the sMS-200 ultra.

The MC3+ USB is completely shielded. I've even covered the hole that was there as a result of the SMPS removal.

[BigAlMc]

10 hours ago, austinpop said:

 

The Cybershaft has one output. It drives the reference clock input of the sCLK-EX board. In my setup, that lives in the tX-USBultra.

 

The 4 clock outputs of the sCLK-EX board inherit the ultra low phase-noise of the reference clock, so in effect, the reference clock's quality is propagated across the whole chain.

Thanks Rajiv, 

 

Hope it wasn't a dim question. 

 

Cheers, 

Alan 

[austinpop]

5 minutes ago, BigAlMc said:

Thanks Rajiv, 

 

Hope it wasn't a dim question. 

 

Cheers, 

Alan 

 

Not at all!

[ElviaCaprice]

3 hours ago, mozes said:

@austinpop your contributions are very much appreciated. I like the simple empirical approach you lead on this thread. As always, I also have an open mind like you.

I have an open mind also, but not an open wallet.  Of course that's different for everyone.  For some folks, ISO Regen is even too much.

I just won't spend more than 2K - 2.5K for a single component.  So when it starts at 3X that price, it just doesn't matter what it's SQ is about.  Guess that's one reason I didn't go the trifecta route ever, the price and complexity added up quick for the best SQ, with technical limitations.  The server sCLK-EX route makes more sense financially and technically, for me.  Which brings up another point, I don't need a fixer anymore, which is what that dCS components is.  Would love to add a master clock, at the right price.  Would definitely add a new Chord DAC with the newer Hugo 2 guts in a desktop. 

[BigAlMc]

15 hours ago, austinpop said:

• The dCS NB clearly had a more refined and natural tonal balance. It sounded smoother, richer, and would probably be less fatiguing over long listening sessions.
• The trifecta, on the other hand, sounded a bit more dynamic, had a bigger soundstage, and more air, but did display a hint of coarseness and edginess. 

Hi Rajiv, 

 

Sweeping generalisation here but this (albeit initial) summary seems to imply that the DCS NB is a viable alternative to the Trifecta for those not wanting a spaghetti solution. 

 

But does the follow on question become what's the DCS NB like with a modded or audiophile switch? 

 

I'm thinking that the sCLK-EX for just a modded switch is not realistic financially (for most of us at least). But the DCS paired with an AQVOS switch is an intriguing combo at first glance. 

 

Any thoughts? 

 

Cheers, 

Alan 

[austinpop]

8 minutes ago, BigAlMc said:

Sweeping generalisation here but this (albeit initial) summary seems to imply that the DCS NB is a viable alternative to the Trifecta for those not wanting a spaghetti solution. 

 

I should have said this more categorically in my listening impressions. I am not ready to declare a recommendation based on what I have heard so far. I need to hear the NB in my own system before that. Even though my dealer's system was very very nice, it wasn't familiar to me, so I don't want to make premature judgements.

 

With that said, it would be great if other trifecta owners would do this comparison for themselves and report back. 

[AmusedToD]

13 minutes ago, BigAlMc said:

Hi Rajiv, 

 

Sweeping generalisation here but this (albeit initial) summary seems to imply that the DCS NB is a viable alternative to the Trifecta for those not wanting a spaghetti solution. 

 

But does the follow on question become what's the DCS NB like with a modded or audiophile switch? 

 

I'm thinking that the sCLK-EX for just a modded switch is not realistic financially (for most of us at least). But the DCS paired with an AQVOS switch is an intriguing combo at first glance. 

 

Any thoughts? 

 

Cheers, 

Alan 

 

Exactly my thoughts! I contacted May from SOtM today regarding their upcoming standalone reclocking switches (standalone in a sense that the switch does not require another unit in order to work, in the case of Rajiv’s trifecta, my understanding is that it always requires the txUSBUltra to be turned on for it to work because of the clock signal - Rajiv, please correct me if I got this part wrong), and she said they expect to have a prototype by January 2018.

 

The entry level switch is expected to be in the $500-600 price range. However, this price point indicates the absence of an ultra low noise clock. There will probably be a higher grade switch with the Ultra clock inside, but my guess is it will cost much more. May can’t share more information at this point.

 

@austinpop, if you get the chance for another round of testing the dCS NB, please run the Ethernet signal through your reclocking switch first so that we can see whether it improves the performance of the NB or not. Thanks!

[austinpop]

2 minutes ago, AmusedToD said:

in the case of Rajiv’s trifecta, my understanding is that it always requires the txUSBUltra to be turned on for it to work because of the clock signal - Rajiv, please correct me if I got this part wrong),

 

Yes, that is correct.

 

2 minutes ago, AmusedToD said:

@austinpop, if you get the chance for another round of testing the dCS NB, please run the Ethernet signal through your reclocking switch first so that we can see whether it improves the performance of the NB or not. Thanks!

 

Absolutely! This is on my list of experiments.

[AmusedToD]

12 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

With that said, it would be great if other trifecta owners would do this comparison for themselves and report back. 

 

I would be more than happy to do so if I had the trifecta, but unfortunately I don’t. My quest for a one box solution has prevented me for going down the trifecta route, despite the glowing reviews. Maybe I made a mistake there, only time will tell. I started with a simple sms200, sold it, upgraded to sms200Ultra, sold it, regretted the sale, bought the sms200 again + txUSBUltra in order to follow your Trifecta example, then hesitated again, and now I am selling them too after just a few weeks of ownership because I bought a new DAC and am looking for a matching streamer. Perhaps I made a mistake, and if I did, it will prove to be a very expensive one.

[BigAlMc]

23 minutes ago, austinpop said:

should have said this more categorically in my listening impressions. I am not ready to declare a recommendation based on what I have heard so far. I need to hear the NB in my own system before that. Even though my dealer's system was very very nice, it wasn't familiar to me, so I don't want to make premature judgements.

Understood and thanks. Definitely not jumping to any premature conclusions. Just more food for thought. 

 

On that note tho. Dagnabbit Rajiv! Did I not have enough options to consider already without you adding this 

 

 

[udis]

17 hours ago, austinpop said:

 

Only ballpark timeline. Apparently the MQA firmware for Vivaldi and Rossini is coming "real soon now." 

 

Network Bridge update in "a few weeks."

According to DAR, the dCS MQA update timeline is:

 

dCS Rossini – October 2017
dCS Vivaldi One – November 2017
dCS Network Bridge – November 2017
dCS Vivaldi DAC & Upsampler – December 2017

 

[zoltan]

4 hours ago, afrancois said:

No the sheets are never in direct contact with electronics. I've concentrated on the influence of EMI/RFI entering the devices. Wrapping the paper around the cables would be hard to do because it cracks.

I forgot to mention that the 3M is also around my network isolator EMO-EN30, underneath the sPS-500 and underneath the sMS-200 ultra.

The MC3+ USB is completely shielded. I've even covered the hole that was there as a result of the SMPS removal.

3

Thanks, that seem quite logical that if you shield the whole device, you won't need to shield different parts inside. 
I have an eABS sheet from SOtM (all the remainings that they didn't use in my Ultra) and I have a feeling that I will use it up quickly.  3M sheets are much cheaper, so I'm inclined to order some. I'm just wondering why you chose the 5000-series when the 7000-series seems to be more suitable for our needs. Yes, most expensive but not that much more. A quote from 3M's site: "Improved lower frequency absorber vs. the AB5000 or AB5000S series (@ < 1 GHz)"

 

[afrancois]

7 minutes ago, zoltan said:

Thanks, that seem quite logical that if you shield the whole device, you won't need to shield different parts inside. 
I have an eABS sheet from SOtM (all the remainings that they didn't use in my Ultra) and I have a feeling that I will use it up quickly.  3M sheets are much cheaper, so I'm inclined to order some. I'm just wondering why you chose the 5000-series when the 7000-series seems to be more suitable for our needs. Yes, most expensive but not that much more. A quote from 3M's site: "Improved lower frequency absorber vs. the AB5000 or AB5000S series (@ < 1 GHz)"

 

As far as I understand AB7000 is for near field application. This means interference between components close together in a small compartment. This not what I was looking for when wanting to shield my devices from external interference.

[Johnseye]

12 minutes ago, zoltan said:

Thanks, that seem quite logical that if you shield the whole device, you won't need to shield different parts inside. 
I have an eABS sheet from SOtM (all the remainings that they didn't use in my Ultra) and I have a feeling that I will use it up quickly.  3M sheets are much cheaper, so I'm inclined to order some. I'm just wondering why you chose the 5000-series when the 7000-series seems to be more suitable for our needs. Yes, most expensive but not that much more. A quote from 3M's site: "Improved lower frequency absorber vs. the AB5000 or AB5000S series (@ < 1 GHz)"

 

 

Not only will there be EMI/RF from outside the case but there will be EMI/RF generated inside the case.  If you go back to a post linked from HiFi by @Lebouwsky I think, it goes into great depth on this.  Bottom line is that shielding chips themselves inside the case can help.

[afrancois]

3 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

 

Not only will there be EMI/RF from outside the case but there will be EMI/RF generated inside the case.  If you go back to a post linked from HiFi by @Lebouwsky I think, it goes into great depth on this.  Bottom line is that shielding chips themselves inside the case can help.

I understand, but I didn’t wanted to go that route, sticking 3M on the chips themselves. Even the internally generated EMI will be greatly reduced using a complete shielding like I did.