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

[rickca]

8 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

it was not until the addition of the switch that the SOTM gear really began to hit its stride

I believe you, and others have been similarly impressed by how much better the switch mod makes things.  It just troubles me that nobody really understands why it's so effective.  

[AmusedToD]

10 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

I was astonished to discover, several days later, that it was not until the addition of the switch that the SOTM gear really began to hit its stride and outpace the Mrendu > Offramp (i2s) combination. I've not fully come to terms yet with this trifecta, for it has not been long enough, but as to improvement the answer is no longer illusory. It's better and perhaps considerably better. To what extent I'll discover in time; but I should not be surprised if I come to forsake my dinners and renounce my sleep in the coming days. 

 

Good to know, your findings seem to be completely in line with what @romaz and @austinpop and some other users reported here. Did the power and directness return after introducing the switch? Which power supplies are you using with the SOTM components?

[austinpop]

12 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

Can anyone confirm the use of a Phasure "Lush" cable with the SOTM double stack (SMS-200 Ultra + tXUSBultra) or trifecta (+ switch)?

 

See my post up thread:

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/30376-a-novel-way-to-massively-improve-the-sq-of-the-sms-200-and-microrendu/?do=findComment&comment=703704

 

I am running the chain:

1. Zyxel switch (Ultra mod) > sMS-200 Ultra-modded > ISO-Regen > tX-USBultra > Ayre Codex DAC

I used the Lush between the tX and the Codex, with no issue whatsoever. I have also run this chain without the ISO-Regen with no issue either. 

 

That is puzzling. Could be a faulty cable, or an interaction with your DAC. Have you tried switching positions - for example, use try both USPCB -Lush and Lush-USPCB in the chain.

 

12 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

I was astonished to discover, several days later, that it was not until the addition of the switch that the SOTM gear really began to hit its stride and outpace the Mrendu > Offramp (i2s) combination. I've not fully come to terms yet with this trifecta, for it has not been long enough, but as to improvement the answer is no longer illusory. It's better and perhaps considerably better. To what extent I'll discover in time; but I should not be surprised if I come to forsake my dinners and renounce my sleep in the coming days. 

 

It's good to get another data point like yours. Many of us have found this disproportionate improvement due to the modded switch, and honestly, the reason is not well understood. Until it is, we have to go with empirical findings, but the number of these positive findings is encouraging!

[[email protected]]

Just now, AmusedToD said:

 

Good to know, your findings seem to be completely in line with what @romaz and @austinpop and some other users reported here. Did the power and directness return after introducing the switch? Which power supplies are you using with the SOTM components?

 

Yes, plainly I hear it as "filling" out. Absent the switch, the tandem is impressive, but to these ears, dispassionately or disinterestedly so. I'm not so pompous as to overlook the possibility that I had become acclimated to the MRendu > Offramp sound signature and the comparison was no different to buying a new hat to replace an older one. Perhaps more time was needed to adjust. Still, those were my impressions, given the time I put into them. 

[austinpop]

13 minutes ago, rickca said:

I believe you, and others have been similarly impressed by how much better the switch mod makes things.  It just troubles me that nobody really understands why it's so effective.  

 

Yes, Rick, and hopefully over time, we will see folks like @JohnSwenson get a scientific and engineering handle on this. I'm the first to admit that this finding is purely empirical and I have to marvel at the neurons in @romaz's brain that concocted this idea to mod a commodity switch with the sCLK-EX. 

 

Until we start to see standalone switches that can match the performance of the modded switches that are slaved to the sCLK-EX board in a companion Ultra box, I find it very hard to answer folks who ask me - privately - things like - can I achieve similar performance to your trifecta with an UltraRendu + ISO-Regen? For now, I honestly say - I don't know, as I do not have, nor expect to have anytime soon, a UR for comparison. But I also wonder - how to factor in the modded switch into the equation?

 

It will be really interesting to see if upcoming offerings from JCAT etc change this equation. I believe in the free market and am sure that, sooner or later, we won't need to be tethered to the SOtM solution

[auricgoldfinger]

Has anyone tried the modded switch with the microRendu?

[[email protected]]

25 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

See my post up thread:

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/30376-a-novel-way-to-massively-improve-the-sq-of-the-sms-200-and-microrendu/?do=findComment&comment=703704

 

I am running the chain:

1. Zyxel switch (Ultra mod) > sMS-200 Ultra-modded > ISO-Regen > tX-USBultra > Ayre Codex DAC

I used the Lush between the tX and the Codex, with no issue whatsoever. I have also run this chain without the ISO-Regen with no issue either. 

 

That is puzzling. Could be a faulty cable, or an interaction with your DAC. Have you tried switching positions - for example, use try both USPCB -Lush and Lush-USPCB in the chain.

 

 

We are using it in slightly different configurations. In my setup the Lush sits between SMS 200 U > txUSBultra, mostly due to the difficulties of using a USPCB in my system and the fussiness of the Dual Conduit RAL cable. I also opted for the shortest Lush, which likely will not reach any of the shelved DAC's without serious overhaul.

 

 Would you indulge a favor Austin? Can I trouble you to insert the Lush between the SMS and tX and share your findings? If I was blind as a bat perhaps I would have no qualms about asking, but given your contributions and the ongoing bestowals of your time and efforts, believe me when I say that I am loathe to ask you of all people. 

 

**In a few days time a friend will return my Dave, which will give me ample opportunity to test the cable directly, in several components. So, if you are too busy, please put aside my asking. 

 

***Lastly, while I do not have an Ultra Rendu to offer you Austin, if you want to play around with an MRendu, I would gladly send my unit your way. It's likely I won't need it for some time. 

[austinpop]

13 minutes ago, auricgoldfinger said:

Has anyone tried the modded switch with the microRendu?

 

I know @limniscate and I had done this, so I went back to our handy-dandy first-post index, and found it!

 

See bullet #2 in this post:

 

[austinpop]

14 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

 Would you indulge a favor Austin? Can I trouble you to insert the Lush between the SMS and tX and share your findings? If I was blind as a bat perhaps I would have no qualms about asking, but given your contributions and the ongoing bestowals of your time and efforts, believe me when I say that I am loathe to ask you of all people. 

 

Hi Eric - no problem at all. I will try to get to this tonight, or this weekend latest, and let you know. I have been meaning to try this anyway. My current USB cable sequence is:

- sMS > Curious 0.2m > ISO-Regen > USPCB > tX > Lush 0.7m > Codex

 

I hope to try:

- sMS > USPCB (90º) > ISO-Regen > USPCB > tX > Lush > Codex, and I will now also try:

- sMS > Lush > ISO-Regen > USPCB > tX > Curious 0.2m > Codex

 

Sadly, I cannot make the tX > Codex connection to work with a USPCB. It is just too short, given my use of hefty XLR interconnects.

 

14 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

***Lastly, while I do not have an Ultra Rendu to offer you Austin, if you want to play around with an MRendu, I would gladly send my unit your way. It's likely I won't need it for some time. 

 

Very kind of you to offer, but I have had ample access to mR's, with a couple of extended loans from other CA'ers.

[[email protected]]

1 minute ago, austinpop said:

 

Hi Eric - no problem at all. I will try to get to this tonight, or this weekend latest, and let you know. I have been meaning to try this anyway. My current USB cable sequence is:

- sMS > Curious 0.2m > ISO-Regen > USPCB > tX > Lush 0.7m > Codex

 

I hope to try:

- sMS > USPCB (90º) > ISO-Regen > USPCB > tX > Lush > Codex, and I will now also try:

- sMS > Lush > ISO-Regen > USPCB > tX > Curious 0.2m > Codex

 

Sadly, I cannot make the tX > Codex connection to work with a USPCB. It is just too short, given my use of hefty XLR interconnects.

 

 

Very charitable of you! Much obliged. I look forward to your findings, particularly with regards to the ISO-Regen, which I expect to receive in the coming batch.

 

There was a time I was on the precipice of purchasing an Aurender W20, for it seemed the logical cul de sac for those on the path of computer based audio. Thanks in large part to guys like Romaz and yourself, another way was found; the road less traveled, but a route to the same summits, at a fraction of the cost. 

[auricgoldfinger]

26 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

I know @limniscate and I had done this, so I went back to our handy-dandy first-post index, and found it!

 

See bullet #2 in this post:

 

 

Thanks very much!

[austinpop]

1 minute ago, [email protected] said:

There was a time I was on the precipice of purchasing an Aurender W20, for it seemed the logical cul de sac for those on the path of computer based audio. Thanks in large part to guys like Romaz and yourself, another way was found; the road less traveled, but a route to the same summits, at a fraction of the cost. 

 

That's very gratifying to hear. I know many people (myself included) would love to one day have a better-performing one box solution without all these gizmos and doodads, and at an affordable (relatively) cost.

 

Maybe some day.

[[email protected]]

1 hour ago, AmusedToD said:

 

Good to know, your findings seem to be completely in line with what @romaz and @austinpop and some other users reported here. Did the power and directness return after introducing the switch? Which power supplies are you using with the SOTM components?

I am using an LPS-1 on both components, but am also fiddling around with some other LPSU's I have lying around like the SBooster BOTW P&P ECO (hope I got that right), HDPlex and a W4S PS-1 that is en route. 

[[email protected]]

20 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

That's very gratifying to hear. I know many people (myself included) would love to one day have a better-performing one box solution without all these gizmos and doodads, and at an affordable (relatively) cost.

 

Maybe some day.

Given the topicality of clocks and your many findings, I think you owe it to yourself (or perhaps the community owes it to you?) to listen to one of the reference master clock generators. While certainly a far cry from a one box solution,  perhaps it gives a better idea of what the one box of the future has to live up to. 

[AmusedToD]

6 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

I am using an LPS-1 on both components, but am also fiddling around with some other LPSU's I have lying around like the SBooster BOTW P&P ECO (hope I got that right), HDPlex and a W4S PS-1 that is en route. 

 

How do you find the LPS-1 against the cheaper counterparts? I am using the same Sbooster with the sms200Ultra, but since I got the Kitsune conversion kit for the Singxer SU-1, I am looking to get a linear PSU for that one as well. The LPS-1 is too expensive in Europe, so I am thinking of getting the HDPLEX 200w which would be able to power the SU-1, the future modded switch and perhaps a future modded NUC, all at the same time.

 

Is the HDPLEX worth it in terms of sound quality? Or should I stick with the Sbooster?

 

The SOTM sps1000 (with its 3 different voltage outputs) might be an option, but there aren't many reviews of it on the web.

[AmusedToD]

6 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

Given the topicality of clocks and your many findings, I think you owe it to yourself (or perhaps the community owes it to you?) to listen to one of the reference master clock generators. While certainly a far cry from a one box solution,  perhaps it gives a better idea of what the one box of the future has to live up to. 

 

Couldn't agree more!

[austinpop]

13 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

Given the topicality of clocks and your many findings, I think you owe it to yourself (or perhaps the community owes it to you?) to listen to one of the reference master clock generators. While certainly a far cry from a one box solution,  perhaps it gives a better idea of what the one box of the future has to live up to. 

 

I won't lie - I would certainly like to get my hands on a Mutec Ref 10 for a comparison! Or even better, do a ref clock shootout between the Ref 10, the Stanford clock someone mentioned up-thread, the cheaper Cybershaft, and the forthcoming SOtM reference clock.

 

But I have to be honest - I doubt I will ever consider spending so much (~$3.5k) for a reference clock. 

 

My other question would be about system balance. At what point does my Codex DAC - much as I love it - become the weak link, as the upstream chain becomes better? So then I'll need to look at better DACs.

 

Bricasti M1 with network card, anyone?

[AmusedToD]

3 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

and the forthcoming SOtM reference clock

 

Really? May told me they were preparing something new, but didn't know it was a reference clock. Do you have any details?

[[email protected]]

3 minutes ago, AmusedToD said:

 

How do you find the LPS-1 against the cheaper counterparts? I am using the same Sbooster with the sms200Ultra, but since I got the Kitsune conversion kit for the Singxer SU-1, I am looking to get a linear PSU for that one as well. The LPS-1 is too expensive in Europe, so I am thinking of getting the HDPLEX 200w which would be able to power the SU-1, the future modded switch and perhaps a future modded NUC, all at the same time.

 

Is the HDPLEX worth it in terms of sound quality? Or should I stick with the Sbooster?

 

The SOTM sps1000 (with its 3 different voltage outputs) might be an option, but there aren't many reviews of it on the web.

I'm sorry, but I haven't a great deal of time right now, so let me just give you the nuts and bolts. I do not believe the HDPlex is worth it if sound quality is the foremost criteria. I believe the HDPlex represents affordability, versatility and serviceability. It's serviceable up to that point when you can afford (or simply decide) to replace it.

 

The Sbooster represents the other side of the coin, at least for me. It's worth it for the sound quality, even though the handling is sort of slipshod and the design a little bit slovenly. I think the Sbooster is one of the more omitted products on the power market, but not for any reasons I experienced. It's a very solid unit, with what I call a good grip on things and evokes an effortlessness that I'm mostly aware of when it's missing, as for instance when the HDPlex is in my system. No gospel here though, just one man's opinion. 

[rickca]

2 hours ago, austinpop said:

My current USB cable sequence is:

- sMS > Curious 0.2m > ISO-Regen > USPCB > tX > Lush 0.7m > Codex

Have you ever tried listening without the switch mod since you added the ISO REGEN?  Is the switch still as key to the SQ?

[austinpop]

1 hour ago, AmusedToD said:

 

Really? May told me they were preparing something new, but didn't know it was a reference clock. Do you have any details?

 

Well, it's still under development. As I understand it, it is a 10MHz reference clock, but most other details are unknown. Lee and May are expecting to show a prototype at the Denver RMAF in October. I expect that is when we will learn a lot more about it.

[austinpop]

21 minutes ago, rickca said:

Have you ever tried listening without the switch mod since you added the ISO REGEN?  Is the switch still as key to the SQ?

 

Yes. Yes.

 

Sorry if you were hoping for a different answer. 

[austinpop]

5 hours ago, [email protected] said:

 Would you indulge a favor Austin? Can I trouble you to insert the Lush between the SMS and tX and share your findings? If I was blind as a bat perhaps I would have no qualms about asking, but given your contributions and the ongoing bestowals of your time and efforts, believe me when I say that I am loathe to ask you of all people.

 

I managed to get a chunk of late night time to do some experiments.

 

I set my baseline as:

- sMS > Curious 0.2m > ISO-Regen > USPCB > tX > Lush 0.7m > Codex

 

I was able to try these configurations:

1. - sMS > Lush > ISO-Regen > USPCB > tX > Curious 0.2m > Codex
2. - sMS > USPCB (90º) > ISO-Regen > Lush > tX > Curious 0.2m > Codex
3. - sMS > Lush > tX > Curious 0.2m > Codex (to mimic @[email protected]'s scenario)

 

First finding: everything functions perfectly. No issues. Sorry @[email protected] - must be something in your setup.

 

In terms of SQ - I compared scenarios 1 and 2 with my baseline. Findings:

1. Scenarios 1 and 2 sounded identical to me, or at least very hard to distinguish.
2. My baseline sounded distinctly better.

So on my setup at least, the Lush sounds best at the end of the chain, immediately before the DAC.

[matthias]

1 hour ago, austinpop said:

 

I managed to get a chunk of late night time to do some experiments.

 

I set my baseline as:

- sMS > Curious 0.2m > ISO-Regen > USPCB > tX > Lush 0.7m > Codex

 

I was able to try these configurations:

1. - sMS > Lush > ISO-Regen > USPCB > tX > Curious 0.2m > Codex
2. - sMS > USPCB (90º) > ISO-Regen > Lush > tX > Curious 0.2m > Codex
3. - sMS > Lush > tX > Curious 0.2m > Codex (to mimic @[email protected]'s scenario)

 

First finding: everything functions perfectly. No issues. Sorry @[email protected] - must be something in your setup.

 

In terms of SQ - I compared scenarios 1 and 2 with my baseline. Findings:

1. Scenarios 1 and 2 sounded identical to me, or at least very hard to distinguish.
2. My baseline sounded distinctly better.

So on my setup at least, the Lush sounds best at the end of the chain, immediately before the DAC.

 

How does sMS > Lush > Codex compare to the other configurations?

Thanks

 

Matt

[AmusedToD]

6 hours ago, [email protected] said:

I'm sorry, but I haven't a great deal of time right now, so let me just give you the nuts and bolts. I do not believe the HDPlex is worth it if sound quality is the foremost criteria. I believe the HDPlex represents affordability, versatility and serviceability. It's serviceable up to that point when you can afford (or simply decide) to replace it.

 

The Sbooster represents the other side of the coin, at least for me. It's worth it for the sound quality, even though the handling is sort of slipshod and the design a little bit slovenly. I think the Sbooster is one of the more omitted products on the power market, but not for any reasons I experienced. It's a very solid unit, with what I call a good grip on things and evokes an effortlessness that I'm mostly aware of when it's missing, as for instance when the HDPlex is in my system. No gospel here though, just one man's opinion. 

 

Thans for the inputs, so definitely no HDPlex for me