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

[Johnseye]

12 minutes ago, sig8 said:

Rajiv: You can use JRiver as front end for HQ Player by using Geoffrey's method. Works well, and easy to implement.

 

 

 

Going to have to try this.  I hadn't realized it was even possible, thanks!

[Johnseye]

4 hours ago, TopQuark said:

 

Huh? Not all of us are using Chord. The renderer, sMS-200ultra in this case, includes the sCLK-EX.  The sMS-200ultra is the PC running low power ARM in Linux.  The ROCK is just needed to feed the renderer or one can just attach the drives directly to the sMS-200ultra and skip the ROCK or a NAS.  So in essence, it is a direct USB to DAC set-up.

 

What I was asking is a general question.  Barring any sCLK-EX that can be added in any set-up, if using Roon, I don't see any reason why anyone want to go with the CAPS set-up except for the OS.  Even if the upsampler or other exotic digital enhancements are not used in Roon, the library database assembly alone can affect rendering the music if only a single box is used.

 

 

 

 

Separating the renderer isn't necessary.  I've seen no reason that separating the library from an endpoint makes a difference.  There are a couple positive reasons to use an endpoint such as location of the PC, reclocking, filtering and last stage low power delivery point.  However, if you don't need your PC located separately from your dac and you've made adjustments to your PC which address power, clocks and filtering, then the endpoint's use may be unnecessary barring any other use I haven't identified.

 

From a library - renderer standpoint there's no impact to a PCs performance, resource (proc, memory, power) utilization that would negatively impact the sound.  For example, the power which equates to noise, on my server is around 20w and it's coming from a clean SR7 LPSU.  My processor and memory frequency has been throttled in the bios to 800MHz, again theoretically reducing noise.  The only thing I'm missing is the clocking and filtering which will be addressed when I get my new modified board with SOtM equipment.

 

This was the crux of Roy's experiment, the results of which I had been waiting many months before proceeding with.  By modifying the mobo and implementing the tx-USBexp as a USB clocking/filtering source it performs as well as an endpoint.  One thing to keep in mind, everyone's system is different in one way or another.  Roy's experiments are based on his equipment.  You have to make this determination on your own with your equipment and budget and something may not translate. However the theory is strong and there's sound proof of the results.  I forget whether Elvia and Mozes have modified their mobos or implemented a similar solution, but I seem to remember another person doing something similar.

[Johnseye]

1 hour ago, ted_b said:

Geoffrey began this little project as an experiment, and has consistently asked if more worthy script writers could take over and add functionality (and maybe an easier install) to this JRiver as-front-end-to-HQP idea.  But the main connector is JRiver's flexible file association setup (in tools->options-> file types). 

 

Is this working on v23 x64?

Looks like functionality is limited to play/stop.  Not that big of a deal depending on what you want to get out of it.

[Johnseye]

On 10/10/2017 at 8:55 PM, lmitche said:

I run the scripts in the windows optimization thread, and the strip windows command in AO. Also remove stuff from windows in appwiz.cpl like internet explorer. Use tightvnc instead of remote desktop. . . . . . And so on.

 

Larry, would you point me to the scripts in the Windows optimization thread, or even the thread itself please?

 

Why are you using tightvnc vs rdp?  What are the benefits?

[Johnseye]

32 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

When it's a big, bad corporation like Microsoft I can understand this sentiment. 

 

But when it comes to labors of love from true enthusiasts like AudioPhil (AO) or miska (HQPlayer), I am extremely happy to support their efforts, especially since i consider their pricing rather reasonable.

 

Roon lifetime @ $499, on the other hand, was a real struggle for me. It felt like too high a price to me, but eventually I came around. I still don't feel too happy about it. But I have come to appreciate the incredible effort that has gone into the design.

 

So yeah, I don't mind paying for software. Said the software engineer. 

 

I'm still not happy with the cost of Roon either. Perhaps that attitude will change if the product improves.  The capex vs opex ROI was just favorable for the purchase considering I'll likely use it for many years.  If they improve the performance issues I have with scrolling and the android app bugs I'll be happier.  However they don't even respond to my, or others posts about these issues.  They ignore discussions that are not on their development roadmap.

[Johnseye]

13 minutes ago, TopQuark said:

 

No need to be sorry. Everyone just want to learn here. The answers I am looking for have not been addressed because there seemed to be a confusion on what a renderer and what a server is.  The renderer is the server if the drives are directly attached.  All that is different is the OS and the sofware backend that runs the audio whether it is JRiver, Linux, etc.  The sMS-200ultra doesn't use proprietary software.  It is Fedora Linux but optimized for audio by SOtM.  Server management capabilities were added through Fedora.

 

There is no confusion on what a renderer and server are.  Your questions were addressed and the answers are even available at other points of this thread.

 

13 minutes ago, TopQuark said:

 

This is the gist of my inquiry. It seems it is really only the OS and the LAN that austinpop mentioned since, by default, renderers are associated with LAN although they have their own direct attach hard drive capabilities that will not make it any different hardware-wise from a renderer other than the software used.

 

 

Yes, this is what I want to know.  I am not sure about JRiver but Roon uses a lot of resources that I'm afraid can affect the playback.

 

 

This is incorrect.  Roon does not use a lot of resources that affect playback.  I'm guessing you haven't read my previous response to you.  What you're looking for is there.

 

[Johnseye]

44 minutes ago, TopQuark said:

 

sMS-200ultra, the "server", uses 2 clocks of sCLK-EX + 1 clock with external switch.  So that begs the question, is there another clock that can be replaced for the USB in sMS-200ultra or this is unique to tXUSBexp PCIE usb card only?

 

29 minutes ago, ElviaCaprice said:

I was thinking the same thing.  The answer would be yes.  Any clock can be replaced with an sCLK-EX point.

 

When I was looking to upgrade my sMS-200 May was explaining the requirements.  Remember, clocks of the same frequency can use the same tap.  Here's what she said:

"sMS-200 requires 2 clocks and and sMS-200ultra would use 2 clock output from the sCLK-EX, and the sCLK-EX enables 4 outputs. so that you can add 2 more clock outputs from the sCLK-EX which is installed into the sMS-200.

 

And the tX-USBultra requires 1 clock, so that you can enable 3 additional clock outputs from the sCLK-EX which is installed into the tX-USBexp to the other digital devices."

 

22 minutes ago, TopQuark said:

 

True.  Renderers are used, in general, to allow long wires to the LAN. The equation will change of the renderer is right next to the server (i.e. Rock).

 

 

Understood.  Thank you.  I'm married to Roon's room correction capability so it will not work in my set-up.

 

Why would Roon's DSP have an impact?  I use Roon's DSP as well.

[Johnseye]

13 minutes ago, TopQuark said:

 

I use Acourate that can go over 100,000 filter taps.

 

This is just a guess, because I've never used that software, but I still don't think your processor's utilization is going to negatively impact your sound quality if you're using a very good power supply, your motherboard's clocks have been replaced by the sCLK-ex and your USB interface has a similarly good clock, if not the same and is well filtered.  It's essentially going to be the same interface as the sMS-200ultra, if not better.  The only difference we're considering is any noise generated by the processor's utilization which would find its way to the sMS-200ultra anyway unless it's filtered.  That may be through the galvanic isolation ethernet provides so who knows.  Maybe there's something depending on how hard you push your processor.

 

What is your processor's utilization when listening to music?

[Johnseye]

4 hours ago, ElviaCaprice said:

That's the whole recent discovery we made with the sCLK-EX modified server.  Is it better than the Trifecta?  No, but it's on par (all depends on system symmetry) and for anyone an advocate of KISS, 

 

Why do you say it's not better?  If because Roy is also using the txusb ultra then I understand why you'd say that but even the Trifecta is not a Tri when factoring in the other devices involved in any of our chains.

[Johnseye]

4 hours ago, octaviars said:

@ElviaCaprice on your Jetway mobo I see that SOtM modded it to three external clock points do you know what clocks they replaced? I only thought a mobo had one clock for the system and one clock for the ethernet connection but it seems that there is a third one? In the manual for the SOtM sCLK-EX they show a picture of a mobo and a tX-USBexp and they only use three clock points for the mobo AND the  tX-USBexp.

 

I have been searching for a mobo that might work well to modify and also have M.2 for OS (Windows, Roon), SATA for my SSD (music) and a PCIe connector for the tX-USBexp. Found this but I dont really have a clue if it is any good and would work with this setup  

 

https://www.minipc.de/catalog/il/1409

 

See my post here:

 

The board I've identified, and will likely send off to SOtM for modification is the Jetway NF591.  Very similar to the DFI board Roy is using.  The Celeron proc is 6w.  It has a PCIe slot so I can use a tx-USBexp.  It has DC 2.5mm in which means I don't have to use an adapter from my SR7 anymore.  This is a big win.  But it has an M.2 slot which means I can A. use my current low power SSD and B. 

 

The M.2 slot is not capable of using the Optane stick, but I may be able to use it with the mini PCIE.

 

This board will go out to SOtM for modification this week.

[Johnseye]

1 minute ago, octaviars said:

 

Thanks for the info. But do you know how many clock points this mobo takes and what frequency they have? My thoughts is if I use 2 clocks for the mobo and one for the USB card I would have one left to use for my router/switch

 

May at SOtM told me she won't know until they get it in hand, but hopefully it's only 2, one for the motherboard and one to cover both ethernet NICs. 

[Johnseye]

2 hours ago, ElviaCaprice said:

 

After inquiring with May, I have more answers about what exactly they replaced for clocks on my Jetway NUC.  Main system clock, LAN (both we're done) and the USB (I would assume all of the inputs). 

May thinks that by replacing the USB and LAN clocks it helps improve the SQ of the mobo even if not using these clocks directly for the audio stream. 

Therefore, I stand corrected and my hasty judgement of the SOtM's own server which is not all that different technically, as far as the clocking goes.  Still price wise your paying a hefty premium for this server over a DIY of your own.

 

Hopefully others are in the process of doing their own sCLK-EX DIY servers and we shall get some other impressions soon.

 

How many sCLK-EX taps were used for the mobo alone and what were the frequencies? I assume 1 for system, 1 for both NICs but what about the USB? 

[Johnseye]

14 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

I expect 24MHz for USB and 25MHz for Ethernet. So that's 2.

 

Many mobo's also use 25MHz, so then the question remains whether the same 25Mhz clock tap can be shared to drive both the mobo and the Ethernet. But there may be other considerations that require a separate clock tap for the mobo. 

 

I seem to remember @ElviaCaprice saying as much, but it will be good to get his confirmation.

 

I thought it was different taps for the system and ethernet, at least that's what Roy said was done with his board.  

 

1 minute ago, austinpop said:

I wanted to mention an interesting nugget of information Eric and I got during a sit-down with Lee at RMAF. This is in the context of using an sCLK-EX tap to synthesize the sample data frequencies of 22.5792 MHz and 24.576 MHz.

 

I mention this just in case someone is designing an end-to-end setup, and running out of clock taps for some reason.

 

Here's the factoid: Lee mentioned that with sample data frequencies, they can reprogram a single clock tap on the fly to switch between the 2 frequencies. They do this by using a control feedback loop of some kind, where they can detect the sample rate of an impending incoming data stream, and send a control "set the right frequency" signal to the sCLK-EX board.

 

Caveat: due to the language barrier, I can only describe this in very broad terms - I could not glean the details of the feedback loop mechanism.

 

But the application, in whose context he mentioned it, was the use of essentially one clock tap for both 22.5792 MHz and 24.576 MHz in the dX-USBultra.

 

I have no idea if this concept can be used to pack multiple frequencies for other uses. I only mention it as a "good to know" data point.

 

Caveat emptor.

 

This would be nice if possible, but is there any cost or impact to the sound?

 

My dilemma is whether to buy a tx-USBultra's sCLK (3 free clocks) for my motherboard and the tx-USBexp or to buy an sCLK and not the tx-USBultra for the motherboard, tx-USBexp and a switch, or in a worst case scenario I need all 4 clocks for the motherboard and tx-USBexp.  I don't want to have to buy a tx-USBultra and an sCLK.

[Johnseye]

12 minutes ago, elan120 said:

@austinpop, good information indeed.  Based on my limited conversation with SOtM and some additional research for modding my SU-1, only one output tab is needed from sCLK-EX to switch between two frequencies, and the control inputs on sCLK-EX board are the SEL0 and SEL1.  They can, based on the two available input connections, program two different output tabs with two frequencies, so if I can get all the information needed from SOtM to make the project a go, I will be using one of the four output tabs along with SEL0 to control between 22.5792MHz and 24.576MHz outputs.

 

Does this introduce a manual switch or something that automatically knows when a specific frequency is being used?  If manual it limits the number of devices or clocks per sCLK-EX board.  If auto then what's the limit?

[Johnseye]

3 minutes ago, rickca said:

Oh good,  because this wasn't complicated enough before.

 

Yea, is it accurate, why wasn't it explained before, why didn't Roy mention it and did he use it in his build.  This info comes just in time for me.  Hopefully it helps.

 

8 minutes ago, rickca said:

I'd like to understand why SOtM thinks that replacing clocks that aren't used could contribute to better sound quality.

 

Very good question.  It doesn't sound logical unless you actually use the USB ports of the server if the USB card is using PCIe lanes.

[Johnseye]

3 minutes ago, rickca said:

Note that this idea of using one clock tap to switch between frequencies applies only to sample data frequencies, so it doesn't apply to anything on your motherboard or tX-USBexp where nothing runs at sample data frequencies.

 

 

 

I didn't realize that.  Then what's the point?

[Johnseye]

3 minutes ago, lmitche said:

Maybe a clockectomy is better, and cheaper.

 

Well Rick explained it.  I didn't make the connection that it couldn't be used for motherboard clocks.

 

Considering the expense involved in this effort, about $2k all in, I really hope the improvement in sound quality is worth the investment in new system clocks and filters.

[Johnseye]

4 minutes ago, rickca said:

Or maybe a lobotomy. 

 

Why the pessimism.  You agree with other improvements, especially in the power realm.

[Johnseye]

Just now, rickca said:

Thanks @elan120 that's a more accurate 

Oh, it was just a joke! Didn't you see my emoji?

 

[Johnseye]

10 minutes ago, elan120 said:

My understanding is this can be applied to any frequencies, not just the sampling frequencies.  In order to use this feature, you will need a control signal feed back to sCLK-EX to switch between any two frequencies, in the case of MOBO, since all frequencies are being used at their designed output continuously, there is no switching needed.  In the case of sampling frequencies between 44.1KHz anad 48KHz families, only one frequency is being used at a time, and a control signal is available, in my case, to mod SU-1, this feature can be utilized.

 

3 minutes ago, rickca said:

Thanks.  That is a better explanation and agrees with what @lmitche said.

 

So then this can be used with motherboard clocks?

[Johnseye]

56 minutes ago, JohnSwenson said:

It seems a lot of people are getting confused by my posts on the subject of network leakage, I will try and state things in a more concrete manor.

 

This is relating to a switch which is what your network endpoint into your audio system is connected, this may be streamer (microRendu etc) a laptop or other computer Mac mini, PC etc). We shall call this the audio endpoint (AE)

 

Leakage current can get into the AE through the switch in two ways, from the power supply powering the switch, or from the cable connected to the rest of the network. The leakage coming from the network comes from the SMPS powering THOSE devices.

 

If the switch connected to the AE is powered by an SMPS, grounding the negative of output of the SMPS will shunt the leakage from that supply, but the leakage from the NETWORK will still go through. There is one exception, see the next section.

 

IF the switch is one of FS105 and FS108, grounding the negative of the supply will get rid of BOTH the leakage from the SMPS AND the network leakage. NOTE, this ONLY happens for these two switch types. Grounding the supply to a different switch type does NOT block network leakage.

 

If you are powering a switch from a linear supply, this gets rid of the leakage going through the PS of the switch, but NOT the network leakage. The only way to get rid of the network leakage is to use one of the above switches AND ground the negative of the supply powering the switch, no matter WHAT that supply might be. (linear, SMPS, LPS-1 etc)

 

If you are using an LPS-1 to power the switch, see the above rules for ANY supply. ANY supply includes the LPS-1. Thus IF you have one of the two named switches and you are powering the switch from an LPS-1, you must ground the output of the LPS-1 in order to block the network leakage. This will only work with one of those two switches. Grounding the output of the LPS-1 will NOT block leakage if you are using some other switch. It will not help if the LPS-1 is driving some other type of device. Thus there is no reason to ground the output of an LPS-1 if it is NOT driving one of the above named switches.

 

There is one exception to the last point. IF the LPS-1 is driving an ISO REGEN there can be a situation where the whole audio system is floating with respect to earth ground and a charge can build up which can show up as clicks and pops. ONE earth ground in such a system can alleviate this. ONE way to do this is to ground the negative of the supply powering the ISO REGEN. If this supply is an LPS-1 then you can try grounding the output of the LPS-1 to see if it fixes the clicks and pops.

 

Grounding the INPUT to the LPS-1 can help in other situations by shunting the high impedance leakage.

 

I hope this makes things clear, I'm running out of ways to say this.

 

John S.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@JohnSwenson  Does it make sense to use these switches at other locations in the network to contain any noise generated from the devices attached to those switches at the switch?  Or by using one of these switches does it then block all upstream noise eliminating any need for others, so that an edge switch used for audio devices is all that's needed?  I'm wondering if it makes sense to use these switches everywhere possible and shunts wherever I have a PSU using a barrel adapter.

 

By the way, your explanation was the clearest summarization I've seen. Thanks.

[Johnseye]

13 minutes ago, ElviaCaprice said:

Here is the answer from May concerning the exact details of my NUC modified sCLK-EX.  This is just to clarify and be exact.  When you send a mobo to SOtM, they will change out the clocks accordingly and check for frequency/voltage.  No need to tell them.

12Mhz goes to USB(2.5v), and 25Mhz goes to the main(0.8v) and lan(1v), and they can’t be combined to the one physically cause they require the different power voltages. if they requires the same voltage, it can be combined.

 

 

This still begs the question of why the mobo USB? Unless you're using it for something. 

[Johnseye]

7 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

I remember reading earlier in this thread about a version 3 of these switches. How important is the version of these switches? Will all versions work the same? It appears the obvious difference is in the dc voltage. I see a 7.5 vdc and a 12 vdc version. Newegg doesn't specify the specific version number on the product page and to make it worse, they're showing pictures of both the 7.5 V and 12 V models in the same product page.

 

My question as well.  Amazon sells an FS105NA which looks like it's the v2 switch.  I like that it's 7.5v instead of 12v as it makes it much easier to power with an LPS-1 if necessary.  @JohnSwenson mentioned the 12v having a better jack but not sure on the details.  This v2 version also has a grounding plug.  See picture.  Not sure how that plays into it all and whether using it provides any added benefit.

 

[Johnseye]

12 minutes ago, zoltan said:

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

 

 

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

[Johnseye]

Just now, afrancois said:

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

 

Agreed, as my results found the greatest reduction in noise from shielding the cases themselves.  I did shield the chips after but can't say with 100% certainty it had a noticeable effect.  That it does is based on others observations and theory.