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

BTW - I had an email back from May on some questions and she gave me two nuggets of info:

 

 

  1. the sMS-200 Ultra's SQ is improved significantly in their own listening tests by adding the tX-USB Ultra in series. Obviously, we'll need to validate that in the community, but @romaz 's findings with the dX-USB HD (with sCLK-EX clocking) certainly support this.
  2. She doesn't have the exact specs finalized, but she thinks the sMS-200 Ultra will require at least 1.5A (this is not an official number, so don't hold me to this) - which means we may have to look at other PSes than the LPS-1 to power it. It will be interesting to see what their upcoming sPS-500 PS really is, and whether it is ultracapacitor based. She could not share any details yet.

When I first received my tX-USB HD (USB-to-SPDIF converter), SOtM had told me I should be able to power it fine with 7V/1A (my LPS-1). When I got it and I attempted to power it with my LPS-1, it would turn on but it wouldn't function and so I think they are now quoting a minimum of 1.5A for the sMS-200 based on my experience (this is provided you aren't connecting any bus-powered hard drives to the back of the sMS-200 which would result in much more than 1.5A draw).

Link to comment
BTW - I had an email back from May on some questions and she gave me two nuggets of info:

 

 

  1. the sMS-200 Ultra's SQ is improved significantly in their own listening tests by adding the tX-USB Ultra in series. Obviously, we'll need to validate that in the community, but @romaz 's findings with the dX-USB HD (with sCLK-EX clocking) certainly support this.
  2. She doesn't have the exact specs finalized, but she thinks the sMS-200 Ultra will require at least 1.5A (this is not an official number, so don't hold me to this) - which means we may have to look at other PSes than the LPS-1 to power it. It will be interesting to see what their upcoming sPS-500 PS really is, and whether it is ultracapacitor based. She could not share any details yet.

I am confused... Won't the sMS-200 Ultra have the same clocks as the tX-USB Ultra?

Link to comment
I am confused... Won't the sMS-200 Ultra have the same clocks as the tX-USB Ultra?

Yes, they both will use the same clock but it appears that multiple reclockings seems to result in further benefit and that has been my experience. I'm sure there will be a point of diminishing return and so what the practical stopping point will be is not yet clear. You could look at this as a marketing ploy by SOtM but my experience has been that the improvement with further reclocking with this clock has been significant and in my case, very worthwhile. Would it be cost effective to buy both an sMS-200 Ultra and the tX-USB Ultra (their version of the USB Regen) or perhaps maybe their dX-USB HD Ultra (their USB-to-SPDIF converter)? The difference will be there for sure but what I would advise is that if you know you would want two or maybe even three of these components, since their clock board has the option of 4 clock outputs, I would suggest that you get one of these units in the Ultra version and order the 2nd (or 3rd) unit in the less expensive standard version and have SOtM wire them together so that the standard versions tap into the clock that is in the Ultra. It would be considerably less expensive this way. Another inexpensive option would be to buy a cheap switch like I did and have them use a clock output for this switch.

 

If you go this route, keep in mind that you will not be able to power the Ultra unit with an LPS-1 but you could use the LPS-1 for the other units.

Link to comment
Yes, they both will use the same clock but it appears that multiple reclockings seems to result in further benefit and that has been my experience. I'm sure there will be a point of diminishing return and so what the practical stopping point will be is not yet clear. You could look at this as a marketing ploy by SOtM but my experience has been that the improvement with further reclocking with this clock has been significant and in my case, very worthwhile. Would it be cost effective to buy both an sMS-200 Ultra and the tX-USB Ultra (their version of the USB Regen) or perhaps maybe their dX-USB HD Ultra (their USB-to-SPDIF converter)? The difference will be there for sure but what I would advise is that if you know you would want two or maybe even three of these components, since their clock board has the option of 4 clock outputs, I would suggest that you get one of these units in the Ultra version and order the 2nd (or 3rd) unit in the less expensive standard version and have SOtM wire them together so that the standard versions tap into the clock that is in the Ultra. It would be considerably less expensive this way. Another inexpensive option would be to buy a cheap switch like I did and have them use a clock output for this switch.

 

If you go this route, keep in mind that you will not be able to power the Ultra unit with an LPS-1 but you could use the LPS-1 for the other units.

 

I am a bit confused about how you manage to reclock your switch. Or did I misunderstand your earlier post from around a week ago.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

Link to comment
I am a bit confused about how you manage to reclock your switch. Or did I misunderstand your earlier post from around a week ago.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

 

 

All network switches have clocks. It's just they're not very good. Once I decided to try out SOtM's new clock for my sMS-200, I realized I had a free (available) clock output since their clock board has the option of 4 clock outputs. The first clock is $700. Every subsequent clock is much less expensive and so it made sense to me to utilize them all. I had a cheap network switch lying around and given the improvement I had heard with my Paul Pang network switch with TCXO clock, I decided to see how another switch with SOtM's new clock might fare compared against this TCXO clock. And so I sent this cheap switch to SOtM in Korea and they replaced that switch's stock clock for me with their own clock at the same time they were retrofitting my sMS-200. I will vouch for SOtM's workmanship. It is first rate. What I can also say is that SOtM's clock wipes the floor with TCXO.

Link to comment
When I first received my tX-USB HD (USB-to-SPDIF converter), SOtM had told me I should be able to power it fine with 7V/1A (my LPS-1). When I got it and I attempted to power it with my LPS-1, it would turn on but it wouldn't function and so I think they are now quoting a minimum of 1.5A for the sMS-200 based on my experience (this is provided you aren't connecting any bus-powered hard drives to the back of the sMS-200 which would result in much more than 1.5A draw).

Just to be clear, I have used the sMS-200 (not Ultra) with an LPS-1, and it works just fine. Of course, this is without any bus powered drives.

 

May's comment was about the forthcoming sMS-200 Ultra.

My point was that with the Ultra, one would need to factor in the cost of a different LPS than the LPS-1, and if one wants an ultracap PS, one would have to buy up to a Vinnie Rossi Mini Pure 4 EVR.

 

It's also unknown whether the tX-USB Ultra will need more than 1.1A, but if your experience with the dX-USB HD is any indication, then sounds like it will.

 

So the costs are racking up fast here!

Link to comment
Ok. Now I understand. I thought somehow the sclck board had rj 45 inputs. It wasn't clear from the description. How much did SOtM charge you for that?

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

They charged me $1100 for 4 clocks + $25 per clock installation (labor) for the 3 other clocks = $1175. This included drilling a hole through my switch chassis to allow passage of the clock cable and all soldering that will be necessary. In hindsight, I would have sent them a Zyxel switch similar to my Paul Pang switch as it is of more robust build quality and it is also my understanding that their 5-port switch has no switching regulators and is a native 5V device. If you are interested in using an LPS-1 to power it, stay away from 8-port (or more) switches as all of those will require 9V or 12V input. As an aside, yesterday, I compared the LPS-1 vs my HDPlex with this switch and the LPS-1 sounds better.

Link to comment

My only concern is that I'd have to give up Roon. Having to manage nearly 5k albums without Roon would be a real joy kill for me but I do like how you get Tidal and Spotify access + CD

 

Not sure if I'm pointing you inn the right direction, but you know about ROCK ?

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/roon-optimized-core-kit-previously-reported-as-roon-os/14175/191?u=r1200cl

 

Can someone tell me what AO is ?

Link to comment
BTW - I had an email back from May on some questions and she gave me two nuggets of info:

 

 

  1. the sMS-200 Ultra's SQ is improved significantly in their own listening tests by adding the tX-USB Ultra in series. Obviously, we'll need to validate that in the community, but @romaz 's findings with the dX-USB HD (with sCLK-EX clocking) certainly support this.
  2. She doesn't have the exact specs finalized, but she thinks the sMS-200 Ultra will require at least 1.5A (this is not an official number, so don't hold me to this) - which means we may have to look at other PSes than the LPS-1 to power it. It will be interesting to see what their upcoming sPS-500 PS really is, and whether it is ultracapacitor based. She could not share any details yet.

 

Interesting times, If there is an SMS 200 ultra coming soon, then I am sure that Sonore is cooking a new beefed up microrendu as well.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

Link to comment
Just to be clear, I have used the sMS-200 (not Ultra) with an LPS-1, and it works just fine. Of course, this is without any bus powered drives.

 

May's comment was about the forthcoming sMS-200 Ultra.

My point was that with the Ultra, one would need to factor in the cost of a different LPS than the LPS-1, and if one wants an ultracap PS, one would have to buy up to a Vinnie Rossi Mini Pure 4 EVR.

 

It's also unknown whether the tX-USB Ultra will need more than 1.1A, but if your experience with the dX-USB HD is any indication, then sounds like it will.

 

So the costs are racking up fast here!

I have heard (but not compared) Vinnie's Mini Pure 4EVR ultracap-based PSU powering an mR and I very much liked what I heard. I'm sure it compares favorably against the LPS-1 at 7V and as you stated, it outputs more current (2.5A continuous) and can be ordered at higher voltage outputs (3.3-12V).

 

It may have higher output impedance than the LPS-1, however (this is my own conjecture), and for sure, it will have higher output impedance than a Paul Hynes supply. This is based on published reports that the ultracaps Vinnie uses in his LIO each output 2.7V with an impedance of 2 milliohms per ultracap. If he is using the same ultracaps in his mini, that would mean he is using 5 ultracaps per bank (which would generate 13.5V) and then he down-regulates to the desired voltage. With 5 ultracaps at 2 milliohms of impedance each, that would equate to 10 milliohms of impedance for his mini (over what frequency spectrum is unknown). While this is very good and better than most, it is more than triple the output impedance of Paul Hynes' supplies (<3 milliohms from DC to 100kHz).

 

Vinnie charges about $1k for his mini which is about the same price as a Paul Hynes SR7 with a single rail. You could say that as an ultra-cap PSU, the mini will have the advantage of having no leakage current. In my own experience comparing the LPS-1 against the SR7, as many know, I had not found this to be an issue and I had assumed it was due to my Chord DAVE's excellent galvanic isolation but in fact, this is what Paul shared with me just yesterday:

 

"A point worth clarifying is that only the power supply chassis are

grounded for safety reasons. All the supply rails are galvanically

isolated from each other and the rails are totally floating with respect

to earth until connected to the equipment to be powered. Each power

supply rail takes then its ground reference from the equipment under

power. This completely avoids any power supply generated ground loops

and the resulting inter-modulation distortions that ground loops can

cause."

Regardless, your point is well taken. To do this new clock justice, you will need to factor in the cost of a good supply.

 

On a separate note, for those who benefit from an Intona and are interested in buying a single device with SOtM's superclock, the question has been raised about whether a tX-USB Ultra (to follow the Intona) might be a better purchase than an sMS-200 Ultra? This certainly would be my guess as well. I think you want your very best clock at the end.

Link to comment
Not sure if I'm pointing you inn the right direction, but you know about ROCK ?

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/roon-optimized-core-kit-previously-reported-as-roon-os/14175/191?u=r1200cl

 

Can someone tell me what AO is ?

Yes, I am aware of ROCK and I suspect it will sound great. For me, the big question remains, "can I bridge my LAN ports with this OS?"

 

AO = Audiophile Optimizer made by Phil Hobi. It is very easy to implement with either Windows 10 or Windows Server 2012/2016 and has the added benefit of providing you various sound signatures and digital filters.

Link to comment
I have heard (but not compared) Vinnie's Mini Pure 4EVR ultracap-based PSU powering an mR and I very much liked what I heard. I'm sure it compares favorably against the LPS-1 at 7V and as you stated, it outputs more current (2.5A continuous) and can be ordered at higher voltage outputs (3.3-12V).

 

It may have higher output impedance than the LPS-1, however (this is my own conjecture), and for sure, it will have higher output impedance than a Paul Hynes supply. This is based on published reports that the ultracaps Vinnie uses in his LIO each output 2.7V with an impedance of 2 milliohms per ultracap. If he is using the same ultracaps in his mini, that would mean he is using 5 ultracaps per bank (which would generate 13.5V) and then he down-regulates to the desired voltage. With 5 ultracaps at 2 milliohms of impedance each, that would equate to 10 milliohms of impedance for his mini (over what frequency spectrum is unknown). While this is very good and better than most, it is more than triple the output impedance of Paul Hynes' supplies (<3 milliohms from DC to 100kHz).

 

Vinnie charges about $1k for his mini which is about the same price as a Paul Hynes SR7 with a single rail. You could say that as an ultra-cap PSU, the mini will have the advantage of having no leakage current. In my own experience comparing the LPS-1 against the SR7, as many know, I had not found this to be an issue and I had assumed it was due to my Chord DAVE's excellent galvanic isolation but in fact, this is what Paul shared with me just yesterday:

 

"A point worth clarifying is that only the power supply chassis are

grounded for safety reasons. All the supply rails are galvanically

isolated from each other and the rails are totally floating with respect

to earth until connected to the equipment to be powered. Each power

supply rail takes then its ground reference from the equipment under

power. This completely avoids any power supply generated ground loops

and the resulting inter-modulation distortions that ground loops can

cause."

Regardless, your point is well taken. To do this new clock justice, you will need to factor in the cost of a good supply.

 

On a separate note, for those who benefit from an Intona and are interested in buying a single device with SOtM's superclock, the question has been raised about whether a tX-USB Ultra (to follow the Intona) might be a better purchase than an sMS-200 Ultra? This certainly would be my guess as well. I think you want your very best clock at the end.

 

Your argument makes sense to me that the best clock should be at the end. I am looking for ways to simplify my usb chain. Maybe the tX-USB Ultra is the way to go, do you have any idea when it will be out?

 

Also the new mystery product that Alex from uptone audio will announce in a week or so is interesting as well

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

Link to comment
Your argument makes sense to me that the best clock should be at the end. I am looking for ways to simplify my usb chain. Maybe the tX-USB Ultra is the way to go, do you have any idea when it will be out?

 

This has always made sense to me, and in my case, that last clock is the W4S RUR.

 

So the questions that remain at large:

  1. @romaz is finding that it is not just the last clock before the DAC that should be "good," but the last n clocks, where 1 < n <∞! In his case, he's tried n=3 (switch, sMS-200, USB-SPDIF converter), and is going for n=9 with his 5-clock MOBO mods. He's a wild man!
  2. Will the tX-USB Ultra outperform the RUR, all else constant?
  3. Does the Intona after a good clock like the sMS-200 negate the value of that clock?

Also the new mystery product that Alex from uptone audio will announce in a week or so is interesting as well.

 

Indeed! How will this mystery device compare with the Intona+<RUR, tX-USB Ultra>? So many open questions!

Link to comment
Your argument makes sense to me that the best clock should be at the end. I am looking for ways to simplify my usb chain. Maybe the tX-USB Ultra is the way to go, do you have any idea when it will be out?

 

Also the new mystery product that Alex from uptone audio will announce in a week or so is interesting as well

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

 

I have been told April will be the release date for any of their products that will have this new clock.

 

Yes, lots of anticipation for Uptone's new product. It's amazing how quickly digital is advancing.

Link to comment
This has always made sense to me, and in my case, that last clock is the W4S RUR.

 

So the questions that remain at large:

  1. @romaz is finding that it is not just the last clock before the DAC that should be "good," but the last n clocks, where 1 < n <∞! In his case, he's tried n=3 (switch, sMS-200, USB-SPDIF converter), and is going for n=9 with his 5-clock MOBO mods. He's a wild man!
  2. Will the tX-USB Ultra outperform the RUR, all else constant?
  3. Does the Intona after a good clock like the sMS-200 negate the value of that clock?

 

 

Indeed! How will this mystery device compare with the Intona+<RUR, tX-USB Ultra>? So many open questions!

My goal is to replace 8 clocks but that is because it makes the most financial sense to do so. It is always the first clock of four that is the most expensive and so if I am going to buy two clock boards, why not use all four clocks per board? I am hoping that somewhere between 4 and 8 clocks, I will stop hearing any further improvement because I don't relish the idea of buying a 3rd clock board.

Link to comment
My goal is to replace 8 clocks but that is because it makes the most financial sense to do so. It is always the first clock of four that is the most expensive and so if I am going to buy two clock boards, why not use all four clocks per board? I am hoping that somewhere between 4 and 8 clocks, I will stop hearing any further improvement because I don't relish the idea of buying a 3rd clock board.

You got PM.

Link to comment

Looking for a little help...thought I'd try out the bridging method between my Mac Mini and microRendu but can't seem to get it working or at least seen through Roon Core on the Mini. Basically my setup is Router>thunderbolt ethernet > Mac Mini > ethernet port> ethernet cable > EMO EN-70HD > .5m ethernet > microRendu.

What i've done so far besides the hard connections, is turning on internet sharing for the thunderbolt ethernet to ethernet port in the Mac's network settings. On the Mac i can access the web page for the microRendu however Roon is not seeing it, neither can i connect to the Rendu's page from my phone or iPad. Am i missing something? Thanks!

Link to comment
Looking for a little help...thought I'd try out the bridging method between my Mac Mini and microRendu but can't seem to get it working or at least seen through Roon Core on the Mini. Basically my setup is Router>thunderbolt ethernet > Mac Mini > ethernet port> ethernet cable > EMO EN-70HD > .5m ethernet > microRendu.

What i've done so far besides the hard connections, is turning on internet sharing for the thunderbolt ethernet to ethernet port in the Mac's network settings. On the Mac i can access the web page for the microRendu however Roon is not seeing it, neither can i connect to the Rendu's page from my phone or iPad. Am i missing something? Thanks!

If you're seeing your mR when you open the sonicorbiter site on your browser, that's a good thing. Make sure Roon is selected and then reboot your mR and restart Roon and see if that does it.

Link to comment

As Romaz mentioned quite a few posts earlier that he thought the SQ of sMS-200 is better than mR which I totally agree. And that brings me wonder what could cause such difference?

 

H/W aside I would like to find out if there's any difference in the software. They both use heavily twisted Fedora Linux and they share the same features. It's curious to me what makes them to have such different performance. Here's what I did.

 

Enlightened by Romaz's network bridging I suspect if I can check the network latency of both products. So I conducted a simple and a rough experiment, using ping to check the round trip time of the network traffic. I've tested 5 packets, 10 packets and 100 packets. Seems to me that 5 and 10 packets are too few to have any meaning. So I list the test result of 100 packets in below.

 

System setup:

PC - NUC D54250wykh, internal 960G SATA SSD for music files, powered by Keces DC-116

OS - Daphile on USB

 

Network switch - Netgear GS108EV3

DUT - mR and sMS-200 powered by LPS-1

Music Album used: Carman Fantasies - Anne-Sophie Mutter both FLAC and WAV

 

Test Procedure:ssh into Daphile and ping DUT for 100 packets

 

 

Test Result:Network Latency - microRendu, S/W version : 2.3

 

1. direct connection through network bridge

 

No music playback

100 t, 100 r, 0 loss, 99157ms, rtt min/avg/max/Mdev = 0.333/1.298/2.820/0.697 ms

Play Flac from internal SSD

100 t, 100 r, 0 loss, 99156ms, rtt min/avg/max/Mdev = 0.304/1.204/2.676/0.616 ms

Play WAV from internal SSD

100 t, 100 r, 0 loss, 99149ms, rtt min/avg/max/Mdev = 0.258/1.211/2.499/0.622 ms

Play from RAM100 t, 100 r, 0 loss, 99156ms, rtt min/avg/max/Mdev = 0.258/1.196/2.773/0.641 ms

 

2. connected through network switch

 

No music playback

100 t, 100 r, 0 loss, 99147ms, rtt min/avg/max/Mdev = 0.412/1.116/2.883/0.562 ms

Play Flac from internal SSD

100 t, 100 r, 0 loss, 99151ms, rtt min/avg/max/Mdev = 0.323/1.419/2.987/0.700 ms

Play WAV from internal SSD

100 t, 100 r, 0 loss, 99147ms, rtt min/avg/max/Mdev = 0.354/1.300/2.985/0.683 ms

Play from RAM

100 t, 100 r, 0 loss, 99147ms, rtt min/avg/max/Mdev = 0.357/1.324/2.904/0.681 ms

 

 

Test Result:Network Latencies - sMS-200, S/W version : 0.3.3

 

3. direct connection through network bridge

 

No music playback

100 t, 100 r, 0 loss, 99134ms, rtt min/avg/max/Mdev = 0.211/0.305/0.386/0.042 ms

Play Flac from internal SSD

100 t, 100 r, 0 loss, 99139ms, rtt min/avg/max/Mdev = 0.266/0.351/0.547/0.045 ms

Play WAV from internal SSD

100 t, 100 r, 0 loss, 99134ms, rtt min/avg/max/Mdev = 0.222/0.333/0.428/0.033 ms

Play from RAM

100 t, 100 r, 0 loss, 99137ms, rtt min/avg/max/Mdev = 0.250/0.333/0.402/0.036 ms

 

4. connected through network switch

 

No music playback

100 t, 100 r, 0 loss, 99123ms, rtt min/avg/max/Mdev = 0.325/0.401/0.541/0.056 ms

Play Flac from internal SSD

100 t, 100 r, 0 loss, 99122ms, rtt min/avg/max/Mdev = 0.366/0.446/0.589/0.042 ms

Play WAV from internal SSD

100 t, 100 r, 0 loss, 99119ms, rtt min/avg/max/Mdev = 0.335/0.427/0.609/0.048 ms

Play from RAM

100 t, 100 r, 0 loss, 99138ms, rtt min/avg/max/Mdev = 0.320/0.434/0.517/0.040 ms

 

 

Perhaps it's not enough to make any conclusion. But the most interesting part is that mR's network latency is much higher than sMS-200's. And the differences of min and max of mR is way too large. On the other side, the sMS-200 did have very consistent and small latency.

 

By the way, in terms of network performance that Netgear GS-108EV3 looks pretty good. The added latency is quite low. May be it's because there's only 2 devices connected to the switch - PC and network streamer.

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...