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

[MikeyFresh]

11 hours ago, austinpop said:

 

Do you need some kind of crimping tool - I don't have any - or will pliers and brute force get the crimping job done?

 

To use the same ConneX ring terminals I did (link in an above post) you would need a high pressure crimp tool to compress the lug and wire, or alternatively you could solder them, but pliers just won't work.

 

I have a crimper offered by Analysis Plus, it is a very high quality tool for $36 (said to be German-made), and I've made more speaker cables than I can count with it for myself, friends, acquaintances, etc... but for most people who have little ongoing use for it that tool is a pricey option.

 

Other ring terminals such as these generic looking ones found on Amazon/eBay etc... have a different design at the wire entry spot, and while pliers are still not the right tool you could probably get that to work. An Engineer PA-21 is the type of crimper better suited for that kind of connector design however, but it's a $40+ tool (ditto the Molex version). You can find a Chinese knock-off crimper at about half that, but the machined quality/durability of the die will be rather suspect.

 

Maybe the ConneX right-angled spade with the set screw for attaching the wire is a good option, though it could have it's own fitment issues, unfortunately you probably wouldn't know for sure until trying it.

 

Or perhaps you know someone that already has an automotive type crimp tool? That would also work well if someone you know has ever rewired anything on their car and thus possesses that tool (and maybe even a collection of appropriate ring and spade terminals along with it).

 

[austinpop]

4 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

 

To use the same ConneX ring terminals I did (link in an above post) you would need a high pressure crimp tool to compress the lug and wire, or alternatively you could solder them, but pliers just won't work.

 

I have a crimper offered by Analysis Plus, it is a very high quality tool for $36 (said to be German-made), and I've made more speaker cables than I can count with it for myself, friends, acquaintances, etc... but for most people who have little ongoing use for it that tool is a pricey option.

 

Other ring terminals such as these generic looking ones found on Amazon/eBay etc... have a different design at the wire entry spot, and while pliers are still not the right tool you could probably get that to work. An Engineer PA-21 is the type of crimper better suited for that kind of connector design however, but it's a $40+ tool (ditto the Molex version). You can find a Chinese knock-off crimper at about half that, but the machined quality/durability of the die will be rather suspect.

 

Maybe the ConneX right-angled spade with the set screw for attaching the wire is a good option, though it could have it's own fitment issues, unfortunately you probably wouldn't know for sure until trying it.

 

Or perhaps you know someone that already has an automotive type crimp tool? That would also work well if someone you know has ever rewired anything on their car and thus possesses that tool (and maybe even a collection of appropriate ring and spade terminals along with it).

 

Thanks for the links. Yeah - that's always the rub with DIY, isn't it? You need to invest in good tools, so it doesn't make sense for one-off projects.

 

I'll check around with my more handy friends to see if I can borrow.

[MikeyFresh]

9 hours ago, beautiful music said:

Can you post please from where did you bought these stuff?

 

The ConneX ring terminal options are discussed in this post, but there are plenty of other options to consider, the ConneX are just what I settled on.

 

The wire is a generic tinned copper stranded 14 gauge with flexible silicone jacketing.

 

The plugs are Leviton 8256-V, and probably identical to the black, orange, or yellow version found in Home Depot, but my Home Depot is about 12 miles from where I live so it was easier for me to just order the plugs on Amazon Prime and in doing so get the hospital grade version for about $1 more per plug.

[MikeyFresh]

25 minutes ago, austinpop said:

Yeah - that's always the rub with DIY, isn't it? You need to invest in good tools, so it doesn't make sense for one-off projects.

 

Yes there is nothing worse than acquiring various parts and supplies, only to find out your plans are foiled unless you buy a special tool that you'll otherwise have little use for.

 

Fixing or modifying just about anything on a modern automobile is often fraught with that.

[afrancois]

22 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

Did you check the internal temperature of the LPS-1 before , and after doing this ?

There is no way that the heatsinks will work as effectively when sitting on top of 3M material which is NOT designed for this purpose.

All I can tell is that one of the heat sinks was in back order for some time, so I used the LPS-1 with the 3M glued on top without heat sink and it got quite hot. Once the heat sink was on top the temperature dropped considerably. How much I can’t tell, but the heat sink continues to do its job even with the 3M in between.

[Johnseye]

On 10/26/2017 at 9:21 AM, Johnseye said:

For anyone looking to purchase a Netgear FS-105 v2, it is important to note that the barrel of that switch's SMPS is not 5.5 x 2.5 mm.  I just got mine, and am going to have to find another adapter size if I want to use this switch.  I'll probably go into Fry's and see if I can find out the barrel size.  I couldn't find anything online.  The barrel size for FS-105 v3 is 5.5 x 2.5 mm, but uses 12v instead of 7.5, in which case makes it more challenging if wanting to use an LPS-1 to power it.

 

I sent my Netgear GS-105 to John for testing and he'll have it today or tomorrow.  This is the gig version.

 

Good news everyone. The Netgear GS105 has similar characteristics as the FS105. If you want gig speed and port isolation, this will work. 

 

John S let me know he will not be testing any more switches as the process is cumbersome and time consuming. 

[austinpop]

36 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

 

Good news everyone. The Netgear GS105 has similar characteristics as the FS105. If you want gig speed and port isolation, this will work. 

 

John S let me know he will not be testing any more switches as the process is cumbersome and time consuming. 

 

That's great news!

 

If I were contemplating a SOtM trifecta today, I would consider sourcing this switch for modification by SOtM. The only caveat is that this switch requires a 12V PSU. Or you could do what I have done, which is to put the Netgear switch upstream of the modded, sCLK-EX-enabled switch. Make sure the Netgear's PSU is grounded as per JS's advice.

 

With this finding, I will likely swap out the FS105 with the GS105.

[austinpop]

42 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

 

Good news everyone. The Netgear GS105 has similar characteristics as the FS105. If you want gig speed and port isolation, this will work. 

 

John S let me know he will not be testing any more switches as the process is cumbersome and time consuming. 

 

John,

 

Is it this one: https://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-GS105NA-Ethernet-Replacement-Unmanaged/dp/B0000BVYT3?

[Johnseye]

23 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

That's great news!

 

If I were contemplating a SOtM trifecta today, I would consider sourcing this switch for modification by SOtM. The only caveat is that this switch requires a 12V PSU. Or you could do what I have done, which is to put the Netgear switch upstream of the modded, sCLK-EX-enabled switch. Make sure the Netgear's PSU is grounded as per JS's advice.

 

With this finding, I will likely swap out the FS105 with the GS105.

 

20 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

John,

 

Is it this one: https://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-GS105NA-Ethernet-Replacement-Unmanaged/dp/B0000BVYT3?

 

That's the one. I don't know what the impact would be if you used an LPS-1 with it. That is, what would it do when run at a lower voltage. 

[d_elm]

1 hour ago, austinpop said:

 

That's great news!

 

If I were contemplating a SOtM trifecta today, I would consider sourcing this switch for modification by SOtM. The only caveat is that this switch requires a 12V PSU. Or you could do what I have done, which is to put the Netgear switch upstream of the modded, sCLK-EX-enabled switch. Make sure the Netgear's PSU is grounded as per JS's advice.

 

With this finding, I will likely swap out the FS105 with the GS105.

Version 2 of the FS105 is 7.5V and can be powered by LPS-1.  @JohnSwenson tested this version and found it same as version 3.  I hope to have one from eBay but it might be false advertising.

[Johnseye]

11 minutes ago, d_elm said:

Version 2 of the FS105 is 7.5V and can be powered by LPS-1.  @JohnSwenson tested this version and found it same as version 3.  I hope to have one from eBay but it might be false advertising.

 

I got 7.5v from eBay. It was the real deal.

[JohnSwenson]

The chips in all these devices run at 3.3V or less, this is supplied by a switching DC-DC converter. This means you should be able to run it from a supply at the rated voltage down to 4.5V or so.

 

The manufacturers go with higher voltage supplies so they can use a very cheap lower current supply.  So you almost certainly can run from a lower voltage supply as long as it can handle the current at the lower voltage.

 

Exactly how much current that is will depend on how many connections you have to the switch, whether they are Gigabit or 100Mbit, how much traffic there is on each port etc.

 

John S.

[R1200CL]

9 hours ago, Johnseye said:

 

Good news everyone. The Netgear GS105 has similar characteristics as the FS105. If you want gig speed and port isolation, this will work. 

 

John S let me know he will not be testing any more switches as the process is cumbersome and time consuming. 

 

Then it probably likely this one will do to

https://www.netgear.com/support/product/GS105Ev2.aspx#docs

 

Then you can switch of ports, and change speed in SW ?

 

Qiute cheap as well. 

[str-1]

7 hours ago, JohnSwenson said:

The chips in all these devices run at 3.3V or less, this is supplied by a switching DC-DC converter. This means you should be able to run it from a supply at the rated voltage down to 4.5V or so.

 

The manufacturers go with higher voltage supplies so they can use a very cheap lower current supply.  So you almost certainly can run from a lower voltage supply as long as it can handle the current at the lower voltage.

 

Exactly how much current that is will depend on how many connections you have to the switch, whether they are Gigabit or 100Mbit, how much traffic there is on each port etc.

 

John S.

My Netgear FS105 v3 does not work with the LPS-1 (on either 5v or 7v), so I would have to use it with my iFi iPower 12v.  For the moment, I have chosen to use the ZyXEL ES-105A v3 with the LPS-1 running at 5v.

[Johnseye]

5 hours ago, R1200CL said:

 

Then it probably likely this one will do to

https://www.netgear.com/support/product/GS105Ev2.aspx#docs

 

Then you can switch of ports, and change speed in SW ?

 

Qiute cheap as well. 

 

I think "probably" should be changed to "hopefully".  Right now the FS and GS 105 series exhibit very similar characteristics.  Running a managed switch would be very nice for the reasons you pointed out.  Too bad John can't test this one.  We're left with earballing (eyeballing) it without true measurements.

 

13 hours ago, austinpop said:

 

That's great news!

 

If I were contemplating a SOtM trifecta today, I would consider sourcing this switch for modification by SOtM. The only caveat is that this switch requires a 12V PSU. Or you could do what I have done, which is to put the Netgear switch upstream of the modded, sCLK-EX-enabled switch. Make sure the Netgear's PSU is grounded as per JS's advice.

 

With this finding, I will likely swap out the FS105 with the GS105.

 

I've been testing out this unmodified Jetway board and it is clearly superior to the ASUS board I had been using.  I still need to run Windows 2016 in core mode as test, but so far this board adds depth and air to the sound which was not there before.  I like it much more.  The only caveat is that I put a sheet of 3M EMI/RF absorber under the board when I installed it.  This could be the reason for the change and I won't know until I put the ASUS board back.

 

I had been holding back from shipping my hardware to SOtM until I knew about this switch.  I will test it with an LPS-1, but even if it doesn't work with it, I'd modify it depending on the option I choose.  I may not even use a switch in my upcoming modification.  What do you think about these options?  I've been kicking around this dilemma for some time.

 

Option A.  I asked May if the same tap could be used for both the txUSBultra and txUSBexp.  It can not.  Apparently their frequency and voltages are different.

 

txUSBultra (3 available taps)

txUSBexp (tap 1)

motherboard system clock (tap 2), ethernet NICs (tap 3)

 

Option B.

 

sCLK-EX (4 available taps)

txUSBexp (tap 1)

motherboard system clock (tap 2), ethernet NICs (tap 3)

switch (tap 4)

 

With option A I have redundant USB reclocker/filters and no modified switch.  My thought was to bridge the server's NICs and run my NAS into one NIC, so only Tidal streaming would go through the switch.  All locally stored music on my NAS would run through the modified motherboard ethernet NIC.  I will not be able to use ROCK with this config unless I use an unmodified switch because ROCK doesn't support bridged mode.  I have some open questions in my mind about ROCK and I don't like limiting myself in case I want to use it one day.

 

With option B I don't get the tx-USBultra.  I don't know what chaining an sCLK-EX modified txUSBexp and a txUSBultra would do.  I would get the modified switch but would that have a bigger impact than a txUBSultra if I use it?

 

Maybe the switch runs at the same frequency and voltage as the motherboard NICs.  I have to check with May on that.  As of now a sacrifice needs to be made somewhere.

 

What would you choose?

[afrancois]

5 hours ago, str-1 said:

My Netgear FS105 v3 does not work with the LPS-1 (on either 5v or 7v), so I would have to use it with my iFi iPower 12v.  For the moment, I have chosen to use the ZyXEL ES-105A v3 with the LPS-1 running at 5v.

The FS105 v3 however works with the MeanWell (7.5V) that comes with the LPS-1.

[Johnseye]

8 minutes ago, afrancois said:

The FS105 v3 however works with the MeanWell (7.5V) that comes with the LPS-1.

 

That's odd.  It works with the SMPS that powers the LPS-1, but not the LPS-1 itself which runs at the same voltage?

[Superdad]

9 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

 

That's odd.  It works with the SMPS that powers the LPS-1, but not the LPS-1 itself which runs at the same voltage?

I tested and posted about this in the SMPS grounding thread last night. 

The Mean Well that works is 7.5V, whereas the highest setting of an LPS-1 is 7V at present. 

7V sees to be just outside of the range of the wide-range synchronous buck converter chip as implemented in the Netgear switch. 

[Johnseye]

1 minute ago, Superdad said:

I tested and posted about this in the SMPS grounding thread last night. 

The Mean Well that works is 7.5V, whereas the highest setting of an LPS-1 is 7V at present. 

7V sees to be just outside of the range of the wide-range synchronous buck converter chip as implemented in the Netgear switch. 

 

Not wanting to read too much into this, but you said "at present".

[auricgoldfinger]

20 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

 

Not wanting to read too much into this, but you said "at present".

 

A voltage limit of 7V does eliminate a lot of potential sales. 

[LTG2010]

1 hour ago, Johnseye said:

What would you choose?

Definitely Option B.

Reclocking / daisy chaining with the txUSBultra may have a positive impact, but I would add a Master clock input and sell the txUSBUltra to part fund an ocx10 clock.

[Johnseye]

Just now, LTG2010 said:

Definitely Option B.

Reclocking / daisy chaining with the txUSBultra may have a positive impact, but I would add a Master clock input and sell the txUSBUltra to part fund an ocx10 clock.

 

The master clock is still available with either option A or B.  Other than incorporating a master clock with the devices, are there any reasons you would choose B over A?  The cost of an sCLK-EX vs a txUSBultra aren't that different.  I'm not too worried about the cost.

[LTG2010]

3 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

The master clock is still available with either option A or B.  Other than incorporating a master clock with the devices, are there any reasons you would choose B over A?  The cost of an sCLK-EX vs a txUSBultra aren't that different.  I'm not too worried about the cost.

Just for the 4 taps I think the modded switch would have a bigger impact on streaming sound quality. The txUSBUltra I think is essentially the hub/sata version of txUSBexp with a SCLK -EX, but doubling up on this with two SCLK - EX boards seems to improve matters in the trifecta (sms200 Ultra and txUSBUltra) so it may have a positive impact, option B gives you both.

[str-1]

1 hour ago, afrancois said:

The FS105 v3 however works with the MeanWell (7.5V) that comes with the LPS-1.

I’ll give it a try with the Meanwell, and try the grounding tweak, but I’m expecting that the iFi iPower (with grounding) will sound better.

[limniscate]

@Johnseye

 

SOtM found, to their surprise, that the tXUSBExp sounds even better with a tX-USB Ultra after it.