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

[mozes]

1 hour ago, LTG2010 said:

Your pcie lane needs to be 3x4, I think your motherboard uses the older v 1.1, also you are using up both slots with your USB cards. Also your bios needs to support uefi and booting from nvme.

I've sent off a Jetway nf 697 motherboard for modifications, hence my interest in the double USB configuration, my motherboard has spare SATA ports.

Thanks for the info, pls do share your impressions when you get it back.

[lmitche]

6 hours ago, mozes said:

How do you know which motherboard supports Optane drives?

The NVME feature will be documented in the user manual of your motherboard. Since we use the Optane drive as an SSD, there is no need for Optane support.  My motherboard has no Optane support and it works just fine in SSD mode. The performance is insane.

[feelingears]

On 12/13/2017 at 1:11 PM, Johnseye said:

 

My point was that complex is to be expected and complaining about what a spaghetti mess it may be or how it's not simple is contrary to the entire thread.  I didn't mean to come off condescending,  I just think that we as consumers have been programmed by companies like Apple to accept a simple one button solution.  Complex doesn't mean it's not good.  Complex to me means I have options, there's a lot involved and it's customizable. 

 

Just $0.02 FWIW:

 

I'm a very satisfied iTunes/Apple Lossless user. In my system I've compared it to USB via mRendu with LMS/Minimserver, USB direct via several cables du jour, three decrapifiers, and Uptone power, and probably a few others including software like Amarra 4, BitPerfect, etc. I still prefer S/PDIF coax, so that's what I use until one of you fine folks finds a cost-effective, non-spaghetti combo that is worth the effort to change.

 

iTunes wins for me and ease of use is a part of that equation. My system has never sounded so fabulous, and so rather than buy all these clocks and crap, I got me some new, big speakers. And, just because I use and "prefer" iTunes doesn't strictly mean I "like" iTunes...

 

But I follow this thread because I respect the exploration y'all are, shall we say: pioneering. Good on ya. Thanks and back to our regularly scheduled deconstruction of audible electronic esoterica... 

[Johnseye]

12 minutes ago, feelingears said:

 

Just $0.02 FWIW:

 

I'm a very satisfied iTunes/Apple Lossless user. In my system I've compared it to USB via mRendu with LMS/Minimserver, USB direct via several cables du jour, three decrapifiers, and Uptone power, and probably a few others including software like Amarra 4, BitPerfect, etc. I still prefer S/PDIF coax, so that's what I use until one of you fine folks finds a cost-effective, non-spaghetti combo that is worth the effort to change.

 

iTunes wins for me and ease of use is a part of that equation. My system has never sounded so fabulous, and so rather than buy all these clocks and crap, I got me some new, big speakers. And, just because I use and "prefer" iTunes doesn't strictly mean I "like" iTunes...

 

But I follow this thread because I respect the exploration y'all are, shall we say: pioneering. Good on ya. Thanks and back to our regularly scheduled deconstruction of audible electronic esoterica... 

 

Awesome.  Enjoy iTunes.

[feelingears]

@Johnseye I should've said that like others have posted here, I'd prefer to audition now before buying anything after my bout of (fun and rewarding but costly) gear experiments over the last couple years. Your posts about your Audio Alchemy DAC almost got me to pick one up from AA at $1,500 (+ps), but I had to stick to my guns. So much good stuff–wish it were easier to hear it all.

 

Cheers.

[Johnseye]

21 minutes ago, feelingears said:

@Johnseye I should've said that like others have posted here, I'd prefer to audition now before buying anything after my bout of (fun and rewarding but costly) gear experiments over the last couple years. Your posts about your Audio Alchemy DAC almost got me to pick one up from AA at $1,500 (+ps), but I had to stick to my guns. So much good stuff–wish it were easier to hear it all.

 

Cheers.

 

Did you ever get to audition the DDP-1? 

[feelingears]

Sadly, no. Because of all the power supply postings and my own power-listening experiences, I now consider an emphasis on power in a component's design philosophy as essential. Based on what I've read about the design of the DDP-1, your review and others suggests to me that the DDP-1 is likely to be underrated. So I'd love to hear one. (You don't happen to live near Seattle, do you?)  

[Johnseye]

7 minutes ago, feelingears said:

Sadly, no. Because of all the power supply postings and my own power-listening experiences, I now consider an emphasis on power in a component's design philosophy as essential. Based on what I've read about the design of the DDP-1, your review and others suggests to me that the DDP-1 is likely to be underrated. So I'd love to hear one. (You don't happen to live near Seattle, do you?)  

 

Nope, not even close unfortunately. It's an amazing DAC, especially with the additional AA PSU. Peter Madnick is a talented engineer. He's done a lot of work with Constellation, which is above my pay grade. He's since sold AA to Elac and still works an the AA line until he has retires. 

 

Chris is reviewed the DDP-1 and that review is on this site somewhere. That's what prompted me to audition it in the first place. 

[rickca]

7 hours ago, LTG2010 said:

Your pcie lane needs to be 3x4, I think your motherboard uses the older v 1.1, also you are using up both slots with your USB cards. Also your bios needs to support uefi and booting from nvme.

Optane uses a  PCIe 3.0 x2 NVMe interface.  Things like the Samsung 960 Pro use PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe. 

[austinpop]

23 hours ago, Speed Racer said:

 

 

15 hours ago, Johnseye said:

 

"Clean clock".  Accurate so there's no or minimized distortion.  Low phase noise with an excellent quality clock.

Yes, the buffer can help but it's not an end all be all and it depends on the DAC.

 

I think I've said this before, but it bears repeating from time to time, so people reading this thread are clear about all the confusing clock mods that get tossed around here!

 

The whole approach being discussed here with sCLK-EX and reference clocks is NOT ABOUT replacing clocks IN THE DAC! Why? Because most DAC designers - like Ted explains in his video - already take extraordinary care to use high-quality, low-phase-noise clocks in their DACs. It takes an extraordinary clock to improve on this. 

 

No - the clock mods being discussed here apply to the usually crappy oscillators found in switches, mobos, Ethernet and USB interfaces, and the like. Replacing these with high-quality, low-phase-noise clocks like the sCLK-EX, and further improved by OCXO reference clocks like the Ref 10, Cybershaft, etc, is what is yielding the SQ improvements so many of us are hearing.

 

I also want to be upfront about the fact that we do not really understand why we are hearing these SQ improvements. The SQ improvements undoubtedly exist. Our ears don't lie, and so many here have now heard the benefit. But the fact remains that there is not (yet) a clear scientific explanation for why we are hearing an SQ improvement. This is the usual point of divergence between the subjectivists and the objectivists. The former will accept and enjoy the benefit, while the latter will question whether, absent an explanation, the SQ benefit actually exists.

 

I like the approach @JohnSwenson is taking. Rather than being dogmatic, he's digging into the "why" and appears to be making some real headway into understanding what is going on.

 

Even though I am a subjectivist, I am not blind to the fact that this is a puzzle. So - what is the puzzle, really? Primarily, it relates to buffers - or buffering. Ted refers to this in the video. Simply put, the question is this: why would the "quality" of an upstream clock matter, when the data being clocked is flowing into a buffer? What is a buffer? In the most abstract sense, it is an area of storage (in this context, in a device's memory) where data is staged before being sent on. In a buffer, data can arrive and leave at different (clock) rates. Think of the buffers involved in a Tidal stream playing through Roon:

• The stream flows in from your ISP into your modem/router
• Switches and routers often have buffer memory at each port
• data flows into the Roon server over the network interface, into a memory buffer in the Roon application, from which it then flows out over the network interface
• data flows into a streamer (like the sMS-200ultra) over the network interface into a memory buffer in the Roon Ready app, before then flowing out over the USB interface
• many DACs implement a buffer into which data flows in over USB, say, and is then internally clocked in via the DAC's clock.

At every such buffer, if the data is received without error, then it is reasonable to ask - why on earth does the phase noise or jitter characteristics of the clock upstream of the buffer have any effect downstream of the buffer? It's a reasonable question, and is ofter the point of contention when people start arguing about this stuff.

 

Pending breakthroughs by the people actually digging into this - like John - I only have some conjectures. 

 

My strong suspicion is that what we are hearing is the effect of low phase noise clocks on good ol' fashioned analog noise. Let's not think of our long spaghetti chains in terms of their digital functionality, but rather as a connected chain of electronic components, through which analog noise can propagate. Perhaps the impact of low phase noise clocks upstream of the DAC is not in the digital domain, but rather to somehow reduce or mitigate analog noise, either in the data path, the ground plane, or both. Again - this is just a conjecture on my part.

 

One of the primary reasons for this conjecture is our other observation of what drives massive SQ improvements in this upstream chain - PSU quality. I've said before that clock quality and PSU quality are independent axes of optimization. We have ample evidence that extreme optimization on either of these axes has a marked effect on SQ.

 

I'll leave you with an intriguing thought. Do extreme optimizations on the PSU axis reduce the impact of clock optimizations? Roy's latest findings (over on head-fi) with the Zenith SE suggest this might be a distinct possibility. The Zenith SE does not have any heroic clock optimizations that we know of. What it does have are extreme PSU optimizations. The fact that Roy found it equalled or surpassed his reclocked server - at least in some areas - is highly intriguing. 

 

I expect to explore this further soon. But it does underscore the fact that there is much more research and analysis needed to explain why we are hearing these SQ improvements.

[BigAlMc]

Great post Rajiv! 

[marce]

How do you know they are improvements and not just different...

[BigAlMc]

How about different but better 

[sandyk]

33 minutes ago, austinpop said:

I expect to explore this further soon. But it does underscore the fact that there is much more research and analysis needed to explain why we are hearing these SQ improvements.

 

 +1

However, no matter how many members confirm these reports, they will always be regarded as purely ANECDOTAL by a few members, several of whom are in a position to further investigate them, but never will, because they believe that most of them are "wishful thinking" on the part of the people reporting them.

[hurka]

Added +1 u cap psu ,feed iso regen usb input 5v,so 2 side powered.Result: BETTER!!! not just different.Really like the sound now!!!

No expensive external clock in my chain yet,but maybe tomorrow I can get one.I hope more better...

[Cornan]

39 minutes ago, hurka said:

Added +1 u cap psu ,feed iso regen usb input 5v,so 2 side powered.Result: BETTER!!! not just different.Really like the sound now!!!

No expensive external clock in my chain yet,but maybe tomorrow I can get one.I hope more better...

 

This is actually similar to what I am doing. I have the ISO Regen+USPCB powering the Luckit BluWave USB to Spdif board. The galvanicly isolated output of the BluWave is powered by a 5v powerbank.

 

 

I tried to connect clocking between the BluWave and Brooklyn DAC, but somehow I did´nt get it to work properly. My guess it comes down to my cable, but I am trying to figure it out. Anyway, when I tried the clocking i set the Brooklyn DAC sync settings to 44.1kHz on FLAC and the SQ jumped quite a bit. First I thought it was due to the clocking, but it sounded just as great without the clock cable. It turns out that when I set the sync to 44.1kHz on FLAC (and 48kHz on most MQA) the Brooklyn DAC becomes the master instead of the BluWave. By far my best sound up to date. Especially a big impact on my Monkey Banana Turbo 5 speakers!  

 

 

[marce]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 +1

However, no matter how many members confirm these reports, they will always be regarded as purely ANECDOTAL by a few members, several of whom are in a position to further investigate them, but never will, because they believe that most of them are "wishful thinking" on the part of the people reporting them.

Some of do investigate as I said in a long post not long ago, but while I perceive differences in some changes I make, I cannot say they are for better fidelity without empirical data to back that claim up. Different yes, some changes I have liked and kept, that only means I find them more pleasing...

[Cornan]

I have a question. Have anyone on this thread tried the GRIMM CC2 master clock?

 

https://www.grimmaudio.com/pro-products/master-clocks/cc2/

 

 

It is getting a lot of raves plus it looks amazing and is not overpriced IMO. It have just two outputs BTW.

[hurka]

23 minutes ago, Cornan said:

 

This is actually similar to what I am doing. I have the ISO Regen+USPCB powering the Luckit BluWave USB to Spdif board. The galvanicly isolated output of the BluWave is powered by a 5v powerbank.

 

 

I tried to connect clocking between the BluWave and Brooklyn DAC, but somehow I did´nt get it to work properly. My guess it comes down to my cable, but I am trying to figure it out. Anyway, when I tried the clocking i set the Brooklyn DAC sync settings to 44.1kHz on FLAC and the SQ jumped quite a bit. First I thought it was due to the clocking, but it sounded just as great without the clock cable. It turns out that when I set the sync to 44.1kHz on FLAC (and 48kHz on most MQA) the Brooklyn DAC becomes the master instead of the BluWave. By far my best sound up to date. Especially a big impact on my Monkey Banana Turbo 5 speakers!  

 

 

use one 5v 5amper smps, 2x 2.7v 100F ucap serial, charge up the ultracaps, powered the BluWave with powerbank together!!!Enjoy The big jump!!!!

[Cornan]

15 minutes ago, hurka said:

use one 5v 5amper smps, 2x 2.7v 100F ucap serial, charge up the ultracaps, powered the BluWave with powerbank together!!!Enjoy The big jump!!!!

 

Thanks, I am currently powering the ISO Regen with a floating SMPS with LT3045 voltage regs in series. I will order LT3045s for the BluWave isolated output as well and compare it to battery power.

Interesting suggestion! Do you have a picture that shows your idea with serial ucaps? It would make it a bit easier to understand.

[LTG2010]

7 hours ago, rickca said:

Optane uses a  PCIe 3.0 x2 NVMe interface.  Things like the Samsung 960 Pro use PCIe 3.0 x4 NVMe. 

Thats for optane memory not the SSD modules we were discussing which use PCIE 3x4 NVME. In either case they are not supported by the motherboard mentioned.

[lmitche]

5 hours ago, austinpop said:

Do extreme optimizations on the PSU axis reduce the impact of clock optimizations?

Hi Rajiv,

 

Nice to see the two of us thinking alike in this regard. I'll take a look at Roy's headfi posts. Thanks for the heads-up.

 

Larry

[Johnseye]

7 hours ago, austinpop said:

 

 

I think I've said this before, but it bears repeating from time to time, so people reading this thread are clear about all the confusing clock mods that get tossed around here!

 

The whole approach being discussed here with sCLK-EX and reference clocks is NOT ABOUT replacing clocks IN THE DAC! Why? Because most DAC designers - like Ted explains in his video - already take extraordinary care to use high-quality, low-phase-noise clocks in their DACs. It takes an extraordinary clock to improve on this. 

 

No - the clock mods being discussed here apply to the usually crappy oscillators found in switches, mobos, Ethernet and USB interfaces, and the like. Replacing these with high-quality, low-phase-noise clocks like the sCLK-EX, and further improved by OCXO reference clocks like the Ref 10, Cybershaft, etc, is what is yielding the SQ improvements so many of us are hearing.

 

I also want to be upfront about the fact that we do not really understand why we are hearing these SQ improvements. The SQ improvements undoubtedly exist. Our ears don't lie, and so many here have now heard the benefit. But the fact remains that there is not (yet) a clear scientific explanation for why we are hearing an SQ improvement. This is the usual point of divergence between the subjectivists and the objectivists. The former will accept and enjoy the benefit, while the latter will question whether, absent an explanation, the SQ benefit actually exists.

 

I like the approach @JohnSwenson is taking. Rather than being dogmatic, he's digging into the "why" and appears to be making some real headway into understanding what is going on.

 

Even though I am a subjectivist, I am not blind to the fact that this is a puzzle. So - what is the puzzle, really? Primarily, it relates to buffers - or buffering. Ted refers to this in the video. Simply put, the question is this: why would the "quality" of an upstream clock matter, when the data being clocked is flowing into a buffer? What is a buffer? In the most abstract sense, it is an area of storage (in this context, in a device's memory) where data is staged before being sent on. In a buffer, data can arrive and leave at different (clock) rates. Think of the buffers involved in a Tidal stream playing through Roon:

• The stream flows in from your ISP into your modem/router
• Switches and routers often have buffer memory at each port
• data flows into the Roon server over the network interface, into a memory buffer in the Roon application, from which it then flows out over the network interface
• data flows into a streamer (like the sMS-200ultra) over the network interface into a memory buffer in the Roon Ready app, before then flowing out over the USB interface
• many DACs implement a buffer into which data flows in over USB, say, and is then internally clocked in via the DAC's clock.

At every such buffer, if the data is received without error, then it is reasonable to ask - why on earth does the phase noise or jitter characteristics of the clock upstream of the buffer have any effect downstream of the buffer? It's a reasonable question, and is ofter the point of contention when people start arguing about this stuff.

 

Pending breakthroughs by the people actually digging into this - like John - I only have some conjectures. 

 

My strong suspicion is that what we are hearing is the effect of low phase noise clocks on good ol' fashioned analog noise. Let's not think of our long spaghetti chains in terms of their digital functionality, but rather as a connected chain of electronic components, through which analog noise can propagate. Perhaps the impact of low phase noise clocks upstream of the DAC is not in the digital domain, but rather to somehow reduce or mitigate analog noise, either in the data path, the ground plane, or both. Again - this is just a conjecture on my part.

 

One of the primary reasons for this conjecture is our other observation of what drives massive SQ improvements in this upstream chain - PSU quality. I've said before that clock quality and PSU quality are independent axes of optimization. We have ample evidence that extreme optimization on either of these axes has a marked effect on SQ.

 

I'll leave you with an intriguing thought. Do extreme optimizations on the PSU axis reduce the impact of clock optimizations? Roy's latest findings (over on head-fi) with the Zenith SE suggest this might be a distinct possibility. The Zenith SE does not have any heroic clock optimizations that we know of. What it does have are extreme PSU optimizations. The fact that Roy found it equalled or surpassed his reclocked server - at least in some areas - is highly intriguing. 

 

I expect to explore this further soon. But it does underscore the fact that there is much more research and analysis needed to explain why we are hearing these SQ improvements.

 

A much better explanation than I gave.  A key point is that we don't know why there's an improvement in SQ by doing this.  EE's casting doubt in this thread and others point to known facts in an attempt to dispute what we hear, but are unwilling to take it upon themselves to find the scientific reasons why we are hearing a difference.  Except John S. of course.  He's the only one in this forum at least, willing to do the work.  The others rest on what has been documented in the past.  I suspect there are other people making similar discoveries outside of our small forum of computer audiophiles.

[Johnseye]

8 hours ago, austinpop said:

 

 

I think I've said this before, but it bears repeating from time to time, so people reading this thread are clear about all the confusing clock mods that get tossed around here!

 

The whole approach being discussed here with sCLK-EX and reference clocks is NOT ABOUT replacing clocks IN THE DAC! Why? Because most DAC designers - like Ted explains in his video - already take extraordinary care to use high-quality, low-phase-noise clocks in their DACs. It takes an extraordinary clock to improve on this. 

 

No - the clock mods being discussed here apply to the usually crappy oscillators found in switches, mobos, Ethernet and USB interfaces, and the like. Replacing these with high-quality, low-phase-noise clocks like the sCLK-EX, and further improved by OCXO reference clocks like the Ref 10, Cybershaft, etc, is what is yielding the SQ improvements so many of us are hearing.

 

I also want to be upfront about the fact that we do not really understand why we are hearing these SQ improvements. The SQ improvements undoubtedly exist. Our ears don't lie, and so many here have now heard the benefit. But the fact remains that there is not (yet) a clear scientific explanation for why we are hearing an SQ improvement. This is the usual point of divergence between the subjectivists and the objectivists. The former will accept and enjoy the benefit, while the latter will question whether, absent an explanation, the SQ benefit actually exists.

 

I like the approach @JohnSwenson is taking. Rather than being dogmatic, he's digging into the "why" and appears to be making some real headway into understanding what is going on.

 

Even though I am a subjectivist, I am not blind to the fact that this is a puzzle. So - what is the puzzle, really? Primarily, it relates to buffers - or buffering. Ted refers to this in the video. Simply put, the question is this: why would the "quality" of an upstream clock matter, when the data being clocked is flowing into a buffer? What is a buffer? In the most abstract sense, it is an area of storage (in this context, in a device's memory) where data is staged before being sent on. In a buffer, data can arrive and leave at different (clock) rates. Think of the buffers involved in a Tidal stream playing through Roon:

• The stream flows in from your ISP into your modem/router
• Switches and routers often have buffer memory at each port
• data flows into the Roon server over the network interface, into a memory buffer in the Roon application, from which it then flows out over the network interface
• data flows into a streamer (like the sMS-200ultra) over the network interface into a memory buffer in the Roon Ready app, before then flowing out over the USB interface
• many DACs implement a buffer into which data flows in over USB, say, and is then internally clocked in via the DAC's clock.

At every such buffer, if the data is received without error, then it is reasonable to ask - why on earth does the phase noise or jitter characteristics of the clock upstream of the buffer have any effect downstream of the buffer? It's a reasonable question, and is ofter the point of contention when people start arguing about this stuff.

 

Pending breakthroughs by the people actually digging into this - like John - I only have some conjectures. 

 

My strong suspicion is that what we are hearing is the effect of low phase noise clocks on good ol' fashioned analog noise. Let's not think of our long spaghetti chains in terms of their digital functionality, but rather as a connected chain of electronic components, through which analog noise can propagate. Perhaps the impact of low phase noise clocks upstream of the DAC is not in the digital domain, but rather to somehow reduce or mitigate analog noise, either in the data path, the ground plane, or both. Again - this is just a conjecture on my part.

 

One of the primary reasons for this conjecture is our other observation of what drives massive SQ improvements in this upstream chain - PSU quality. I've said before that clock quality and PSU quality are independent axes of optimization. We have ample evidence that extreme optimization on either of these axes has a marked effect on SQ.

 

I'll leave you with an intriguing thought. Do extreme optimizations on the PSU axis reduce the impact of clock optimizations? Roy's latest findings (over on head-fi) with the Zenith SE suggest this might be a distinct possibility. The Zenith SE does not have any heroic clock optimizations that we know of. What it does have are extreme PSU optimizations. The fact that Roy found it equalled or surpassed his reclocked server - at least in some areas - is highly intriguing. 

 

I expect to explore this further soon. But it does underscore the fact that there is much more research and analysis needed to explain why we are hearing these SQ improvements.

 

2 hours ago, lmitche said:

Hi Rajiv,

 

Nice to see the two of us thinking alike in this regard. I'll take a look at Roy's headfi posts. Thanks for the heads-up.

 

Larry

 

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/review-comparison-of-5-high-end-digital-music-servers-aurender-n10-cad-cat-server-totaldac-d1-server-auralic-aries-audiophile-vortex-box.787020/page-70#post-13804310

 

Unfortunately his last post was Oct. 24th.

[Speedskater]

7 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 +1

However, no matter how many members confirm these reports, they will always be regarded as purely ANECDOTAL by a few members, several of whom are in a position to further investigate them, but never will, because they believe that most of them are "wishful thinking" on the part of the people reporting them.

Just where are all these reports?  A listening report would include a protocol stating how the test was setup, how the proctor kept the listener blind, how many different listeners, how many tests each listener did and of course results.

 

Any useful report must be repeatable and reproducible.