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

[asdf1000]

2 hours ago, austinpop said:

Enter the new SOtM switch. Boy this thing is a beast. If the Zyxel and TLS switches are chihuahas, this thing is a golden retriever.

 

Hi austinpop

 

Can you describe what the actual differences are to your ears and personal tastes?

 

As you know from discussions with Rob Watts, some people actually like the sound of more RF (and that is fine), which can present itself as more detail, when in reality it can be increased IMD they are enjoying.

 

I know this is all subjective but when you say there’s “a substantial boost in SQ” it may help if you could share your own subjective personal opinion/observations  on how so. 

 

Do you hear more detail? Or does the SQ becomes warmer, darker sounding? More bass? Less bass?

 

I’d love to know what “a substantial boost in SQ” actually means to your ears and tastes.

 

Cheers!

[asdf1000]

8 minutes ago, austinpop said:

Gee thanks - the one time I don't describe the SQ improvement in detail, I get called out on it! Man, tough crowd!  

 

Hehe many thanks. Any ranking is always more helpful with some sort of description of why/how they are different, even if it's highly subjective.

 

8 minutes ago, austinpop said:

I've discussed the SQ benefit from a better switch before. Feel free to check out my previous posts in the index.

 

Noted but I was asking about this particular SOtM switch...

 

8 minutes ago, austinpop said:

Yes, I've had the "clock improvements - you think it's an SQ improvement, I hear it as RF noise." discussion with Rob and Roy. In this particular instance, I have to disagree with Rob.

 

Respectfully noted. I don't always agree with Rob (and he doesn't mind) but on this one, my ears do agree with him.

 

 

[asdf1000]

16 minutes ago, austinpop said:

Ah, now it's my turn. Could you clarify the context of "my ears do agree with him." What did you listen to - in the context of better clocks - and what did you hear?

 

Hehe I already hinted in my first reply to you. I've always found adding these external clocks sounded brighter. In this case I do agree with Rob that it's potentially artificial increased brightness which may be increased RF causing increased IM distortion. Emphasis on potentially - I wouldn't have a clue at all at the actual technical mechanisms involved.

 

So when I read these switch reviews (and any component upstream of the DAC, i.e. digital) I try to look/listen for things like warmer, darker sounding, rather than more detail (personal preference and taste)

 

Having said that, it can vary case by case, product to product. I haven't heard the SOtM unit that you ranked as 10/10 though. I will give it a listen.

 

16 minutes ago, austinpop said:

OK fair enough. Yes, the improvement I heard with the SOtM switch over the TLS OCXO was a further opening up of the soundstage, instruments were more defined, easier to tell apart, and there was more micro-detail.

 

Much appreciated.

[asdf1000]

17 minutes ago, austinpop said:

If I heard clock optimizations as added brightness, I'd never have gone down this path.

 

Noted. For example, you've said the SOtM switch added micro detail. Linking back to Rob Watts, increased perceived detail can actually be increased brightness (it doesn't need to be the unbearable brightness you described), which can be increased RF causing increased IM distortion. We have no real way of knowing, so it's just fun chatter about potential technical mechanisms.

 

17 minutes ago, austinpop said:

You should draw your own conclusions based on your own ears, of course.

 

Agreed. Thanks for at least now sharing a description alongside the 10/10 ranking.

 

[asdf1000]

27 minutes ago, austinpop said:

Just out of curiosity, Sean, what is your end to end chain?

 

Always changing Rajiv ?

 

Currently Roon ROCK (fanless build) to HQPe (fanless build) to iFi Pro iDSD to MrSpeakers AEON Flow Closed cans.

 

Previously Hugo2, Dave, HD800, HD800-S and others in all sorts of different combinations.

 

Like you, I prefer to judge components/changes up-stream of the DAC based on listening fatigue, over long periods in my case.

 

Quick A/B'ing is rarely useful for me. I tend to like stuff that makes me want to crank the volume louder even after a long listening session - and tend to not like stuff that makes me want to turn down the volume of my favourite music (even if just a touch down) during a long listening session.

 

I don't claim anything scientific here. Just based on my personal preferences, tastes and 'feeling'.

 

[asdf1000]

An interesting post by Rob Watts here about linear PSU's vs SMPS. I don't know if we have any PSU experts here, other than @JohnSwenson

 

Obviously Rob couldn't have possibly inspected/measured every linear PSU on the planet but I assume he has good experience with a variety.

 

"And before anybody starts saying LPS, these devices provide no rejection from 10 MHz and above, as they do not employ RF filters- but a SMPS must employ filters, both on the OP and back to the mains.

As you know, RF noise creates noise floor modulation, as the intermodulation distortion from random RF noise is a white noise modulated by the wanted signal. This then results in noise floor modulation, and is very very audible. It accounts for the things sounding brighter and less smooth; additionally, when you reduce RF noise, things sound considerably warmer and darker, and one consequence of this is perception of tempo - more midrange gives the impression of a slower tempo, as individual instruments have much more body.

Now if somebody prefers the brighter sound from more noise floor modulation, then fine - that's their taste and preference. But it's not accurate."

 

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/chord-electronics-hugo-2-the-official-thread.831345/page-934#post-14445774

 

 

 

 

[asdf1000]

11 minutes ago, seeteeyou said:

What really *IS* "accurate" and how does one actually define that? Is it "accurate" to his ears and brain? Maybe his taste and preference are the only yardsticks when it comes to accuracy? LOL

 

Lol good questions. I guess it may possible that he relies on the (state of the art?) measured performance of his gear, as a starting point? I don't know though.

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/chord-electronics-dave-da-processor-measurements

 

[asdf1000]

14 minutes ago, hieukm said:

Love Chord Dac + Blu2 as i have them but Rob Watts say his el cheapo Chinese SMPS is better than all the LPS out there is laughable. 

 

Well this is the point I made earlier - it's not possible he's inspected/measured every linear PSU on the planet. But I assume he's commenting based on a variety of linear PSU's that he has inspected or measured.

 

As he also says, some people actually prefer a slightly brighter sound with different PSU's, thinking they are hearing more 'detail' - when in reality it's more RF getting through causing higher IM distortion, resulting in the brighter sound, mistaken for more 'detail'.

 

This is the tricky thing when our own preferences vary so much. But he does have access to measurement gear that we don't...

[asdf1000]

5 hours ago, austinpop said:

But the mystery here is that Rob seems to be attributing the noise floor modulation (and resulting brightness) to LPSes - like yours - whereas most of us here have had the opposite experience. It's the SMPSes that cause the bright, fatiguing sound, and once you replace with an SR4 or SR7DR, the resulting sound is so much more relaxing, effortless, and open.

 

I don't understand this.

 

This isn’t a company sponsored forum thread so I wonder if @Rob Watts could chime in.

 

As I mentioned a few times, it’s not possible that he’s seen and measured every single linear PSU on the planet but I assume he based his comments on a variety he has seen (we don’t know which..)

 

Edit: I see paul explains things well above, i.e. some linear PSU’s can perform poorly and some well. i.e. like everything, they should be considered case by case

[asdf1000]

@marce , another qualified person, also said something very similar to Rob Watts, just last week:

 

"LPS's are not the panacea for all evils), slapping a LPS on the front end does not guarantee better quality in fact often it is worse because most noise is in the audio frequency range... But it has become a Audiophile belief/mantra use a LPS!""

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/54151-design-criteria-in-dacs/?do=findComment&comment=875816

 

Another example from a qualified expert, that each PSU needs to be looked at case by case, rather than treating all linear PSU's holistically... 

 

Of course, it always goes without saying, that if your ears are happy then that's all that matters. And Rob Watts says the same in the quote I shared above. But it can be technically worse performing.

[asdf1000]

31 minutes ago, seeteeyou said:

we've gotta be able to eliminate the confounding factors or else we can't really single out what the PSU itself is contributing to the entire system.

 

I agree. Even marce (in that link I posted above) says:

 

"This is one situation where I think how it sounds would be a better way of determining whether you like a DAC or don't..."

 

With so many variables in a system of components in a home setup, it can be hard to technically predict what interactions will affect what.

 

33 minutes ago, seeteeyou said:

Actually even he admitted that SMPS was doing more harm than good, we could certainly measure anything we want but in the end it's still a matter of listening to the results after the damage is done

 

Interesting. I hadn't see that one. Thanks. Even more interesting would be to know why Rob's guessed Dave's SMPS was negatively affecting the system performance (i.e. what technical mechanisms did he think/guess were at play) but I guess we may never know.

[asdf1000]

2 minutes ago, austinpop said:

This is where it all comes full circle, especially given the theme of this thread. Ultimately, it's about using your ears to determine the aggregate effect of all these competing factors.

Yes, as I said, this should always go without saying. But it's always a good idea to repeat every now and then.

 

[asdf1000]

6 minutes ago, austinpop said:

That example was from listening tests during Rob's visit to Roy's house. Roy's full quote might explain it better:

 

Thanks but the part I'm interested in is the end:

 

"it was Rob's assessment that DAVE's PSU was likely negatively impacting my other gear."

 

As I mentioned above, I wonder what was going through Rob's mind as he was trying to guess what technical mechanisms were at play, effecting SQ. We may never know. Or maybe I should just ask him ?

 

[asdf1000]

54 minutes ago, romaz said:

My Chord M-Scaler has a galvanically isolated USB input, BNC SPDIF input, and a Toslink input and as you know, Toslink is completely immune to RF noise.  The BNC connections between my M-Scaler and Chord DAVE DAC are further galvanically isolated.  Having compared the USB input, SPDIF input, and Toslink input, they are each comparable meaning to say they each sound very good with USB and Toslink sounding virtually equivalent.

 

Respectfully, I do believe this is a little bit presumptuous also. TOSlink is immune interference but Rob himself will tell you the galvanic isolation of Dave's USB input and M-Scaler's BNC outputs are not perfect - there is still coupling to upstream mains electrical connections (unless your source is battery operated and therefore disconnected from mains completely).

 

While you say USB and TOSlink sound virtually equivalent (to your ears), there are numerous other owners who say the opposite. Which links to Rajiv's earlier point a few posts up - there's still room for improvement, even in some of the word's best and most expensive DACs out there.

 

 

[asdf1000]

9 minutes ago, romaz said:

I'm not sure where I've made a presumption here.  As a transmission medium, Toslink is completely immune to RF and so that isn't a presumptuous statement. 

 

Ya if it wasn't clear, I agreed with you on TOSlink...

 

9 minutes ago, romaz said:

I was responding to a post that suggested "crap" was going through my DAC's USB port and while this isn't an untrue statement, to my ears, as I have compared Hugo M Scaler's USB input to it's Toslink input, I am finding them to be "virtually" identical, at least close enough to not care whether I am using one or the other.  It really doesn't matter to me if other people hear it differently since it is my ears that I have to satisfy.

 

Ya, I agree, his statement wasn't untrue (except for perhaps a battery powered USB source...)... But when you called his comment presumptuous and explained that to your ears USB sounded virtually identical to TOSlink I 'presumed' that you too were being presumptuous in hinting that the USB isolation of Dave is perfect.

 

I think we agree on most points to be honest, so I'm happy to end this exchange ?

 

[asdf1000]

For those running Audiolinux + Roon Bridge on the current popular lower power NUC - have you tried installing Roon OS (ROCK) on the NUC ?

 

There's no need to enable 'Roon Core' - after installed ROCK. Don't set it up as a  'Core' and it will appear as a Roon Bridge endpoint on your existing Roon Core. And this is an OS built from scratch by Roon Labs themselves - not based on an existing Linux distro... which makes me guess it may be optimized as well as possible for RAAT.

 

While Roon recommend a short list of officially supported NUC models for installing ROCK (Roon OS), many have found it works fine on all kinds of PC's, even if unsupported.

 

Especially if just using the Roon Bridge functionality and the OS is completely built by Roon Labs, one would think it's optimized as well as possible for RAAT?

 

[asdf1000]

9 hours ago, Johnseye said:

Running Audiolinux as a headless NAA for HQPlayer was simple and running in minutes.

 

Hi John

 

Have you compared this with running Jussi's own complete bootable NAA image, for the NUC? 

 

https://www.signalyst.eu/bins/naa/images/

 

 

[asdf1000]

1 hour ago, greenleo said:

Anyway $29 is nothing in this hobby and I guess the sharing of our findings, the time spent to writing the comparisons and guidelines cost us much muchh more than $29.  YMMV.

 

In terms of HQP NAA, Jussi's own NAA image is free. Is this AL solution better sounding to your ears?

 

Similarly, one can load Roon's Roon OS (ROCK) on a NUC and use it as a RoonBridge, for free. This is an OS designed and built from scratch by the Roon Team (not based on an existing Linux distro).

 

Wondering if people have compared these with this AL NUC solution.

 

[asdf1000]

1 minute ago, seeteeyou said:

In the end it's still another flavor of Linux with another name, I just couldn't understand the part about scratch

 

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/nucleus-sound-quality/46266/40

 

From Danny (COO):

 

"One of the big differences between Roon OS and the others in this space is that Roon OS never “shut down” anything. It just doesn’t include them from the start. Roon OS built from scratch, not built on top of another server or desktop operating system with items that need to be disabled. Every option, every piece of software on this box is there on purpose. I’ve yet to see another Linux based audio device that works this way (ARM or x86/x64)."

[asdf1000]

6 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

The HQPlayer NAA needs to be installed on an OS unless you're referring to Embedded which is not free. 

 

Jussi has his own fully bootable NAA image... and this can be used on a NUC. No need for the user to install an OS beforehand.  I would imagine he knows how to optimize things for HQP NAA as well as anyone. And that image is free.

 

Just asking if those using HQP NAA on AL have tried Jussi's own NAA image?

 

 

 

[asdf1000]

5 minutes ago, Dev said:

 

I think the problem is with the terminology and Linux as a whole. Any Linux distribution today, be it Centos, Ubuntu, Redhat, Debian, Roon Rock, AudioLinux, Foo, Bar, uses the same Linux kernel and a set of open source software. While many start with a particular distribution, say ArchLinux, like Audio Linux did, what Danny is saying is that Rock is built from the scratch using these standard set of open source s/w. The keyword here is "built" - its not developed from scratch.

 

Noted. I'm only asking if people have actually tried it on this low powered NUC (it's free) to compare with with AL + RoonBridge.

 

As a RoonBridge only, I would assume Roon's ROCK (Roon OS) is highly optimized. 

 

Loading ROCK (without enabling Roon Core for that NUC) will turn that NUC into a Roon Bridge endpoint.

 

[asdf1000]

4 minutes ago, Dev said:

 

Before the NUC business, I ran Rock end-to-end on a server as well as a streamer. I might install Rock someday on this NUC and see how it compares but if my audio memory serves me right, then I would say AL with ramroot will trump Rock.

 

Thanks for the reply and do share if you do try it. I certainly wasn't making any claims (I wouldn't dare, here in this hornets nest ? )

 

Just asking if anyone had actually tried and their impressions.

 

[asdf1000]

1 minute ago, austinpop said:

I suspect we won't know until somebody feels inclined to try it.

Well yes, this is all I've asked, a few times...

 

1 minute ago, austinpop said:

If only we lived in this idyllic world - where a vendor knows best?

 

Well in this case (Roon specifically) is also the vendor who have developed this proprietary streaming architecture (RAAT). 

 

Once again, I'm only asking the question. I'm always careful to not make any claims, especially here in this hornet's nest ?

 

[asdf1000]

4 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

The only bootable HQPlayer I know about is embedded and it's not free. Maybe I'm wrong and if so please point me in the direction. Even if there were you couldn't load it in RAM... Yet. 

 

I linked it earlier in this same thread...

 

https://www.signalyst.eu/bins/naa/images/

 

And yes, Jussi's own NAA image is fully USB bootable (the same way HQPE is - I use both...). And obviously Jussi's NAA image is free - I'm only talking about the NAA/endpoint side here (not the cost of the server side, HQPE or Roon Core costs). No OS needs to be pre-installed (as I've mentioned a few times).

 

Use the x64 image for the NUC...

 

[asdf1000]

3 minutes ago, Dev said:

 

This NAA image is a full OS image, similar to AL.

 

Yup I know. But it's free. Again, I'm just asking if anyone tried this free image developed by Jussi for NAA (and nothing else), compared with the $29 AL + NAA solution...