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

[beerandmusic]

On 11/6/2017 at 3:34 PM, austinpop said:

Clock Distribution and Termination

 

I wanted to update this thread with some information I have gleaned from recent discussions with Kenji Hasegawa-san of Cybershaft, May from SOtM, as well as @zephyr24069, who has provided me very valuable advice with regards to clocks.

 

Important Considerations with Clock Distribution

 

With all the interest in the SOtM sCLK-EX and master reference clocks, it's important not to lost sight of the basic tenets of clock distribution. At the frequencies of interest here, in the 10-54 MHz range, a clock cable acts as a transmission line. Transmission lines are defined by their characteristic impedance. For the SOtM, Mutec, and Cybershaft being discussed here, they are designed to use cables with 50 or 75 ohm characteristic impedance. It is also necessary for clock cables to be terminated at both ends, with the correct impedance (50 or 75 ohm). Proper termination is necessary to minimize reflections, which occurs on the transmission line if there is an impedance mismatch.

 

Point to Point

 

We have almost exclusively been discussing point to point clock connections in this thread. Examples of this are:

1. Cybershaft clock <-> tX-USBultra master clock input via 50 ohm BNC
2. Mutec Ref 10 <-> Mutec MC-3+ USB via 75 ohm BNC
3. sCLK-EX clock point <-> modded component (switch, router, sMS-200, etc) via 50 ohm SMB

In all these cases, it's important to know that the source and target connections are internally terminated. In scenario 1, for example, the Cybershaft output is terminated with a 50 ohm impedance, as is the master clock input of the tX-USBultra. I have confirmed this with both Cybershaft and SOtM. The Mutec Ref 10 uses an internal distribution amp to provide 8 independent clock outputs, but each of these is internally terminated, and expects a properly terminated target as well.

 

In case you are wondering, SOtM handles the termination internally when you send them components to mod. For each sCLK-EX clock point, both the source and the target are appropriately terminated.

 

But what about the case, where you're a cheapskate like me, who doesn't want to spring for multi-output clocks like the Ref 10 or the upcoming SOtM sMS-OCX10? Can I use a single high-quality clock like the OP-14 and drive multiple outputs?

 

This is where things get interesting.

 

Daisy Chaining

 

Yes, you can daisy chain, but you have to consider the entire length of the cable across the chain as a single transmission line, and you must have termination on each end equal to the characteristic impedance of the cable. For this to work, you have to have devices whose inputs can be selectively configured to be terminated (i.e. have an input impedance of 50 or 75 ohms as needed), or unterminated, in which case the input impedance of the input is very high. In the quote from Kenji below, he calls this "Hi-Z."

 

Regarding distribution of clock T plugs, it is possible under certain conditions.

For example, in the case of a daisy chain

 

1.

Clock output(50ohm) ------T--------T--------T-(50ohm)Terminator

                                      (Hi-z)   (Hi-z)    (Hiz)

                               Device1   Device2   Device3

2.

Clock output(50ohm) ------T--------T- non

                                     (Hi-z)   (50ohm) 

                                  Device1   Device2 

 

( Hi-z = High impedance) 

Be sure to have one 50 ohm impedance at the end and the other relay point must be Hi-z.

Therefore, T plug can be used only when the clock input can be set to Hi-z.

For reference, I attach a connection diagram of CH presision CH and D1. Please be aware that each relay point is Hi-z.

If, for example, there are 50 ohm points in two places, the impedance will be 25 ohm, the current will overload and destroy the output circuit of clock due to long-term use.

SOtM tX - USBultra can not set the input impedance to Hi - z. So SOtM tX - USBultra does not use T plug in the situation.

Also, due to the use of T plugs, noises of each device can interfere and clocks that can be transmitted can not be transmitted. I do not recommend using T plug.

The best way to distribute the clock is to use an ultralow noise distribution amplifier.

However, I could not find a low-cost ultra low noise distribution amplifier of less than $ 1000 from the world market.

We are developing to sell low-cost distributors by next spring.

 

Pay particular note to his point about overloading the output circuit of the clock due to it "seeing" a lower impedance than designed. The second consequence of not paying careful attention to termination is that impedance mismatches cause reflections, that degrade the signal integrity of the clock, which negates the whole point in the first place.

 

The other point to note is that he discourages the use of daisy chaining, and promotes the use of an ultra low noise distribution amplifier. I got the same feedback from May and I believe (although I'd have to check) Mutec also discourages daisy chaining. With the Ref 10, it's self evident due to the provision of 8 clock outputs!

 

So what does this all mean

1. Don't daisy chain, if at all possible. Even without the other complications, daisy chains necessitate longer cable lengths, which degrades clock quality
2. If you must, design your chain to ensure that all devices in the chain can be configured to be unterminated, and that there is proper termination of the right impedance on both ends, using tees and terminators.
3. At least for the SOtM Ultra components, SOtM does not currently provide a way to switch between terminated and unterminated. I'm pretty sure that upon request, they can configure a device whichever way you want it.

For me, this means that if I get to the point where I have more than one component with a master clock input that I want to drive, I'll want to spring for a Ref 10 or OCX-10. Ouch!

excuse me for not reading 191 pages of this thread...

what if we are a believer in all this "Clock" stuff...

 

is there anything we can look for in an "off the shelf" network player dac (one box) that would satisfy most of the sq (assuming jitter reduction is the main reason for all this "clock hoopla') this thread pertains to?  I don't want to send stuff off to be modded..what can i look for in marketing to ensure a player dac has desired clock features, whether it exists now or for possible future network players?

 

 

 

 

[austinpop]

3 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

excuse me for not reading 191 pages of this thread...

 

Go to the first post, and look at the index. 

 

3 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

what if we are a believer in all this "Clock" stuff...

 

is there anything we can look for in an "off the shelf" network player dac (one box) that would satisfy most of the sq (assuming jitter reduction is the main reason for all this "clock hoopla') this thread pertains to?  I don't want to send stuff off to be modded..what can i look for in marketing to ensure a player dac has desired clock features, whether it exists now or for possible future network players?

 

You are asking the wrong people. This is a question best asked of manufacturers. The good news is that some are paying close attention. I suspect over time we will see one-box solutions that make all this spaghetti superfluous.

[beerandmusic]

4 minutes ago, austinpop said:

You are asking the wrong people. This is a question best asked of manufacturers. The good news is that some are paying close attention. I suspect over time we will see one-box solutions that make all this spaghetti superfluous.

THANK YOU!

That is the exact answer i was hoping to hear....you were the right person to ask....

When it is all sorted out, i will ask again in a few months (wink)

[ElviaCaprice]

17 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

is there anything we can look for in an "off the shelf" network player dac (one box) that would satisfy most of the sq (assuming jitter reduction is the main reason for all this "clock hoopla') this thread pertains to?  I don't want to send stuff off to be modded..

 

 

 

Fortunately there is not, unless you want to spend 4 to 5k for SOtM's sCLK-EX server, without a DAC.  I already outlined to you in detail how to go about this DIY at a much more reasonable cost, without the DAC.  There is a lot of information on picking a mobo in this thread.  If your really serious about it, you will want to read it all yourself.  Good luck!! 

 

Server=>DAC=>Speakers

[beerandmusic]

6 minutes ago, ElviaCaprice said:

Fortunately there is not, unless you want to spend 4 to 5k for SOtM's server.  I already outlined to you in detail how to go about this DIY at a much more reasonable cost.  There is a lot of information on picking a mobo in this thread.  If your really serious about it, you will want to read it all yourself.  Good luck!!

 

yea, i don't want to get into the weeds, pay $5K, or send off for mods....I just have to be patient...

I don't know if exasound was responding directly to my question about clocks, but they did infer that a player dac combo would be optmal....i can't wait!

 

In the mean time, i just picked up a sr5012 that can function  as a gapless DSD player dac....may not be the same fidelity I want, but it will have to satisfy until the right piece of gear comes along.

 

 

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

In the mean time, i just picked up a sr5012 that can function  as a gapless DSD player dac....may not be the same fidelity I want, but it will have to satisfy until the right piece of gear comes along.

It can even convert DSD to PCM and send it through Audyssey room correction.

[beerandmusic]

28 minutes ago, ElviaCaprice said:

Fortunately there is not,

 

Server=>DAC=>Speakers

 

why fortunately not, and why not:

 

Network Player=>AMP=>Speakers

 

not denying, just curious why not?

If you have the source/dac in one box that seems to be a way to eliminate a lot of the design problems with clocking, jitter, etc....  and exasound suggested the concept is optimal

 

 

[ElviaCaprice]

16 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

why fortunately not, and why not:

 

Network Player=>AMP=>Speakers

 

not denying, just curious why not?

If you have the source/dac in one box that seems to be a way to eliminate a lot of the design problems with clocking, jitter, etc....  and exasound suggested the concept is optimal

 

 

1.  Because I like the components separate, server and DAC for the ability to upgrade one or the other, let alone the power supplies.  I see no benefit in a single unit with these two functions.

2.  I do see a benefit in the DAC having pre and amp capabilities for direct connection to speakers.  Biggest being Chord DAC's that offer extremely low impedance output and extremely good resolution without a separate pre-amp or amp that would only reduce the resolution and increase the impedance.

 

So in light of that, I find my sCLK-EX server direct to Chord DAC direct to Speakers an ideal system "keeping it really simple".

[beerandmusic]

16 minutes ago, ElviaCaprice said:

1.  Because I like the components separate, server and DAC for the ability to upgrade one or the other, let alone the power supplies.  I see no benefit in a single unit with these two functions.

2.  I do see a benefit in the DAC having pre and amp capabilities for direct connection to speakers.  Biggest being Chord DAC's that offer extremely low impedance output and extremely good resolution without a separate pre-amp or amp that would only reduce the resolution and increase the impedance.

 

So in light of that, I find my sCLK-EX server direct to Chord DAC direct to Speakers an ideal system "keeping it really simple".

 

i guess different strokes for different folks will always be true...

 

at the price of lps's....i want one ps for player and dac, common clock, no interconnects or need for usb toys, and i will always have a mcintosh amp,

 

sorry to interrupt the sotm thread, and thanks for info....

 

[ElviaCaprice]

7 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

i guess different strokes for different folks will always be true...

 

at the price of lps's....i want one ps for player and dac, common clock, no interconnects or need for usb toys, and i will always have a mcintosh amp,

 

 

You can buy a single LPS with more than one output.  My Paul Hynes SR7 has 4 outputs which will serve 3 separate components as of now.  The interconnect between the server and the DAC is a USPCB.  The USPCB is the most neutral non invasive USB connector available. 

Also I only need one set of speaker cables, no interconnects.

Yes, different strokes for different folks is about it. 

[beerandmusic]

3 minutes ago, ElviaCaprice said:

You can buy a single LPS with more than one output.  My Paul Hynes SR7 has 4 outputs.  The interconnect between the server and the DAC is a USPCB.  The USPCB is the most neutral non invasive USB connector available. 

Also I only need one set of speaker cables. 

Yes, different strokes for different folks is about it. 

 

So how much for the whole outfit, and anything you plan on changing now or in future or think you can improve on with reasonable cost....and when will it all be available without having to send off for mods....surely it is just a matter of time....when you got it all figured out, sell it to me (wink)

[ElviaCaprice]

16 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

So how much for the whole outfit, and anything you plan on changing now or in future or think you can improve on with reasonable cost....and when will it all be available without having to send off for mods....surely it is just a matter of time....when you got it all figured out, sell it to me (wink)

I priced out every single component, etc. in an older posting in this thread.  About 8K total.  I do plan on acquiring a master clock, but am in no rush to do so with so many new entrants about to enter the market.  I do not want to pay more than 2k for this, better closer to 1K.  I only need one output, so the Cybershaft is currently on top of my list and I would have already acquired it if it had the ability to accept a DC input.  Hint:  My fourth Paul Hynes output.

 

I do plan on upgrading the Chord DAC upon their new release, maybe, depends on it's features.

 

Otherwise I am extremely happy with my system today, it's performance is magical to say the least and I haven't even added the Paul Hynes power supply waiting for me in the States.

[beerandmusic]

Just now, ElviaCaprice said:

I priced out every single component, etc. in an older posting in this thread.  About 8K total.  I do plan on acquiring a master clock, but am in no rush to do so with so many new entrants about to enter the market.  I do not want to pay more than 2k for this, better closer to 1K.  I only need one output, so the Cybershaft is currently on top of my list and I would have already acquired it if it had the ability to accept a DC input.  Hint:  My fourth Paul Hynes output.

is $8K just for the source or does that include amp and/or speakers (grin)....i guess i have a LONG wait.

[ElviaCaprice]

1 minute ago, beerandmusic said:

is $8K just for the source or does that include amp and/or speakers (grin)....i guess i have a LONG wait.

That's everything, power supplies and speakers, DAC, server, cables.  I made my own cables.  Also my software is nearly nothing, just JRiver update every 2 years for $16.

[One and a half]

On 10/9/2017 at 6:05 PM, beautiful music said:

Did you know when Teac UD-505 will be Available?

 

January 27, 2018.

[Johnseye]

For those considering modifying their mobo, the Jetway board had the following clocks: Main clock, 2*LAN, USB, Display, & I.O Controller. The IO controller is a 6*UART and appears to be related to the COM ports. I elected to only modify the system and ethernet clocks. I won't be using the on board USB and see no reason for the others. 

 

I went with the tX-USBultra option. I asked SOtM to pull the sCLK-EX out of it and make direct connections to the mobo and tX-USBexp clocks. An SMB connector will then run from the sCLK-EX to the remaining card in the tX-USBultra which is a tx-USBhub. 

 

I will also be using an Intel X-25E SSD with SOtM SATA 2 filter. This was an afterthought inspired by recent discussions here about SSD noise. Roy tried convincing me on this a while ago but I was stuck on an M2 solution. It's a worth while comparison. A no cable,  direct connection, low power SSD vs a low power cable connected and filtered SSD. 

 

I will have a lot of connectivity options and tests to perform. Other than adding some of Barry Diament"s vibration isolation from Ingress, this should be my final system modifications. Well there is an upcoming LPS from a reputable company I'll be getting as well. 

[rickca]

31 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

I went with the tX-USBultra option. I asked SOtM to pull the sCLK-EX out of it and make direct connections to the mobo and tX-USBexp clocks. An SMB connector will then run from the sCLK-EX to the remaining card in the tX-USBultra which is a tx-USBhub. 

Pretty clever solution.

[jventer]

8 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

excuse me for not reading 191 pages of this thread...

what if we are a believer in all this "Clock" stuff...

 

is there anything we can look for in an "off the shelf" network player dac (one box) that would satisfy most of the sq (assuming jitter reduction is the main reason for all this "clock hoopla') this thread pertains to?  I don't want to send stuff off to be modded..what can i look for in marketing to ensure a player dac has desired clock features, whether it exists now or for possible future network players?

 

 

 

 

Yes

Google” Opera Consonance” They have a Network Player that can do this.

if you want to spend big bucks: Google Vermeer Audio.

There are more.

I can tell you about more, but let me know your views about these suggestions first.

[JJ Braham]

On a slight topic change, it seems still no one has been able to compare the ultrarendu vs the sms-200 ultra. Has anybody had the chance to compare them?

 

Regards

[limniscate]

Audiobacon.net has compared them.

 

@austinpop, @Bruce Orr and I will be comparing them on Monday.

[thyname]

1 minute ago, limniscate said:

Audiobacon.net has compared them.

 

@austinpop, @Bruce Orr and I will be comparing them on Monday.

 

That's awesome! Look forward to it!

[Johnseye]

We've broached EMC/EMI/RF concepts in this thread before.  After experiencing positive results from shielding with the 3M sheets I started looking further into this.  Roy was talking with me about a conversation he had with Rob Watts who recommended using ferrite on the USB cable.  This isn't uncommon with computer based USB, display, mouse, etc cables.  I did some digging about ferrite in the audio realm and came across this article.  It's in depth, but at a minimum have a look at the summary and conclusion points.  I've pasted the 4 common sources here.  There's solid evidence behind this.  I'm going to begin adding ferrite cores to my cables and will share my opinions on audible impact if any.

 

http://www.audiosystemsgroup.com/AESPaperFerritesASGWeb.pdf

 

1. An audio cable will be excited as an antenna by radio signals that surround it, causing current to flow along its length. Most of the current will flow on the shield, but the current can also induce a common mode voltage on the signal conductor(s).

 

2. Improper termination of cable shields within equipment (the Pin 1 problem) injects RF shield current directly into the equipment, [6] where it is detected by several well known mechanisms. [2]

 

3. Imperfect inductive coupling between conductors of a shielded twisted-pair cable converts shield current to a differential voltage on the signal pair (SCIN).

 

4. Inadequate low-pass filtering of signal input and outputs lets RF present on the signal conductors into equipment. Equipment can be sensitive to both differential mode voltage (between the signal conductors) and common mode voltage (an equal voltage on both signal conductors).

[JJ Braham]

24 minutes ago, limniscate said:

@austinpop, @Bruce Orr and I will be comparing them on Monday.

 

Great! Looking forward to your impressions!

[austinpop]

13 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

We've broached EMC/EMI/RF concepts in this thread before.  After experiencing positive results from shielding with the 3M sheets I started looking further into this.  Roy was talking with me about a conversation he had with Rob Watts who recommended using ferrite on the USB cable.  This isn't uncommon with computer based USB, display, mouse, etc cables.  I did some digging about ferrite in the audio realm and came across this article.  It's in depth, but at a minimum have a look at the summary and conclusion points.  I've pasted the 4 common sources here.  There's solid evidence behind this.  I'm going to begin adding ferrite cores to my cables and will share my opinions on audible impact if any.

 

http://www.audiosystemsgroup.com/AESPaperFerritesASGWeb.pdf

 

1. An audio cable will be excited as an antenna by radio signals that surround it, causing current to flow along its length. Most of the current will flow on the shield, but the current can also induce a common mode voltage on the signal conductor(s).

 

2. Improper termination of cable shields within equipment (the Pin 1 problem) injects RF shield current directly into the equipment, [6] where it is detected by several well known mechanisms. [2]

 

3. Imperfect inductive coupling between conductors of a shielded twisted-pair cable converts shield current to a differential voltage on the signal pair (SCIN).

 

4. Inadequate low-pass filtering of signal input and outputs lets RF present on the signal conductors into equipment. Equipment can be sensitive to both differential mode voltage (between the signal conductors) and common mode voltage (an equal voltage on both signal conductors).

 

John,

 

please post any ferrite clamps you find. Roy mentioned somewhere he sourced a bunch inexpensively from Digikey.

 

Their website is a joy to navigate.  

[Johnseye]

1 minute ago, austinpop said:

 

John,

 

please post any ferrite clamps you find. Roy mentioned somewhere he sourced a bunch inexpensively from Digikey.

 

Their website is a joy to navigate.  

 

I'm still learning about how impedance and frequency relate to the cores.  Besides that there's the diameter that needs to be considered.

 

Cat6a is a 500Mhz cable.  Bluejeans cat6a has a 7.3mm diameter.  USB 2 is 200MHz and the bandwidth is 1GHz.  The Lush has a 14mm diameter.  It's hard to find a cable at that has the right diameter and frequency.

 

I'm going to try these because they range from 100-500MHz at 100 ohm.

https://www.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&itemSeq=243445819&uq=636458279157585775

 

And this for the Lush

https://www.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&itemSeq=243199166&uq=636458279157575775

 

Not sure about my power, speaker or interconnects yet.