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

[str-1]

4 minutes ago, Cornan said:

 

AFAIK only if your DAC´s USB input does´nt require 5v. If it does it might disconnect after a little while depending how much current the DAC pulls.

My DAVE dac only needs the 5V to recognise a usb input.

[str-1]

Has anyone been able to compare the sCLK-OCX10 with the Mutec Ref 10?  They are roughly tne same price in the UK (assuming the sCLK-OCX10 can still be bought with the free sPS-500) but the Mutec looks the neater option with its built-in linear power supply and with both 50 ohm and 75 ohm outputs.

 

I need to decide over the few days whether to return my tX-USBultra, which doesn’t have a masterclock input, for one that does.  I’m impressed enough with the sound quality improvements to own it in one form or another but now think that paying a little extra for the masterclock input might be the wiser thing to do.

[str-1]

11 hours ago, auricgoldfinger said:

 

I can't give a comparison but want to point out that SOtM can do both 50 ohm and 75 ohm outputs on the same sCLK-OCX10.  You just have to request whatever combination of outputs you'd like when placing the order.  I have two of each on mine.

Thanks, I didn’t know that.  Two of each seems like a good idea.  

 

Also, I now see that the SOtM boxes are much smaller than the Mutec and probably carry little or no penality in terms of space requirements in my vertical equipment rack.  Do you think it would be ok to stack the sCLK-OCX10 and sPS-500 (and which way round), or any 1+2 combination including the tX-USBultra, or would resulting increase in interference negate any benefits to be gained from shortest possible cables?

 

Finally, and the most important question of all, just how big an improvement can I expect from using an sCLK-OCX10/sPS-500 combo with my SR4-powered tX-USBultra inbetween my Zenith SE and Chord Blu 2/DAVE?  Thanks.

[str-1]

5 hours ago, auricgoldfinger said:

 

I have seen 2 or 3 posts from sCLK-OCX10/sPS-500 owners who are very happy with the combination.  Here is one owner who also happens to stack his 5 SOtM devices. 

 

 

 

As for my situation, SOtM's failure to follow my order instructions resulted in a problem with my first sCLK-OCX10.  Thankfully, I had placed the order through Crux Audio, and when SOtM was atypically unhelpful, Kamal stepped in to rectify the problem himself.  However, I still have not received the replacement unit, so I am unable offer my own listening impressions.

 

I have considered stacking my devices like @ronfint but probably won't do so unless I have space constraints.  I share your concern about interference, but there is really no way to know without doing a comparison.

Thanks again.  Sorry to hear about your problems with the sCLK-OCX10.  

[str-1]

Suspecting that the answer is still ‘no’, I’m wondering if anyone has had chance to compare the Mutec Ref 10 with the sCLK-OCX10?  I need to take a decision on ordering an sCLK-OCX10 very quickly if I’m to benefit from a free sPS-500.

 

I would also be interested in any comparison of the sCLK-OCX10 with standard caps vs Evox caps.  May has told me that the difference that can be heard from the Evox caps is more about a change in character (e.g. more energy) than any technical improvement (though to some, more energy would be just that).  I’m not sure that I need more energy with Chord Blu 2/DAVE at the heart of my system.

[str-1]

2 hours ago, auricgoldfinger said:

 

I have two sPS-500's, one with the Evox caps and the other without.  When powering a tX-USBultra, I prefer the supply with the Evox caps.  The sound is more open as if a veil were lifted.  I didn't spend time doing a more detailed analysis because the difference was quite obvious when I first made the substitution.

 

I'm not really sure what May means by more energy, but it's hard for me to imagine why better caps would be detrimental to an audio device, and particularly, a reference clock.  I have never heard anyone complain after upgrading caps.

Thanks.  I have little technical knowledge but can more easily imagine upgraded caps bringing clear improvements to a power supply.  The comments May offered me were in respect of the sCLK-OCX10.  Would the impact you noticed be similar to what could be expected by upgrading the caps in a master clock?  I really don’t know, so just asking the question.

[str-1]

2 hours ago, Confused said:

I hope you don't mind me asking, but can I ask how much the Evox caps mod costs?  In your case did you order as a modified unit, or was it a case of you sending you existing sPS-500 back to SOtM for the upgrade?

 May quoted me USD100 to upgrade the sCLK-OCX10 caps to Evox when ordering.  I am in the UK and would expect Elite Audio to charge the same (incl. VAT) for that upgrade when ordering through them.  I’ve just ordered an sCLK-OCX10 without that upgrade.

[str-1]

9 hours ago, auricgoldfinger said:

I decided to swap out the silver DC cable powering my sMS-200ultra for a copper cable, and I have now toned down the HF glare considerably.  I need to spend more time evaluating before making a definitive judgment.

 

I will say that the sCLK-OCX10 sounds very good in my system when the HF glare is reduced.

Makes me wonder whether I did right by ordering an upgrade tX-USBultra with internal silver dc wiring.  My original tX-USBultra, which I am sending back for the upgrade within the return period, was just standard build.  I decided to upgrade mainly for the master clock input but thought it would be a good idea to also get the silver wire and EMI paper upgrades at the same time.  I only ordered yesterday, so still time to cancel.  

 

Is anyone having problems with their tX-U that they suspect is down to the silver wiring upgrade?  Tbanks.

[str-1]

3 hours ago, str-1 said:

Makes me wonder whether I did right by ordering an upgrade tX-USBultra with internal silver dc wiring.  My original tX-USBultra, which I am sending back for the upgrade within the return period, was just standard build.  I decided to upgrade mainly for the master clock input but thought it would be a good idea to also get the silver wire and EMI paper upgrades at the same time.  I only ordered yesterday, so still time to cancel.  

 

Is anyone having problems with their tX-U that they suspect is down to the silver wiring upgrade?  Tbanks.

Not to worry.  Unfortunately, I have had to cancel the order as other more pressing priorities have suddenly materialised.

[str-1]

Just to mention for Innuos Zenith SE owners, a recent upgrade to iPeng now links its volume control to that of tne iPad’s.  It didn’t occur to me to check the iPeng volume setting (I didn’t afterall conciously change it) when after a few days of playing my system non-stop (without listening) to help run-in the Clearer Audio BNC cables I have for the Chord Blu 2/DAVE I noticed a marked drop in volume, and mentioned this to Innuos.  Nuno clarified what the problem was and said they are looking into it, but advice for the moment is to keep an eye on the iPeng volume setting to ensure it stays at 100% for bit-perfect playback.

[str-1]

7 hours ago, austinpop said:

First Impressions of Paul Hynes SR-7

 

It's a funny thing. When my SR-4 was delivered just before Christmas, I was leaving on vacation, so @limniscate got to spend a week with it before even I did. Well, now the tables are turned. He left on vacation the day after his long-awaited SR-7 arrived, so he graciously lent it to me.

 

I've got about 100 hours of burn in on the unit, so I thought I'd post some initial impressions. The usual caveats apply: these impressions may change as the unit continues to burn in, and/or with more experiments over longer periods.

 

First things first. While we talk about SR-7s as if they were well-defined PSUs, it's important to note these are custom PSUs, and can be specified with may variables.  So let's first clarify exactly what Eric's build is. It is an SR7MR2DRXL, with 2 HD (6A) modules. Let's unpack what that means:

1. MR2 => this is a 2 rail PSU. According to Paul's price sheet, "the SR7MR uses a custom manufactured mains transformer with up to 500VA rating depending on the overall rail requirements." I haven't opened the unit to inspect what the VA rating of the transformer is, but it is hefty for sure.
2. DR => dual regulators. Per Paul, "... DR versions where two of the high performance voltage regulators are cascaded to a give supply line and rectification interference rejection exceeding 150 dB from DC to 100 KHz. This provides lower overall noise levels than the standard power supplies and better dynamic performance."
3. XL => "...XL ultra low impedance (< 1 milliohm) connectors and fine silver internal wiring between capacitor banks, regulator modules and the output connectors."
4. HD modules => "up to 6A continuous, 30A transient current with a maximum output of 80W continuous"

A final point before I get into my impressions. The last time we did a similar comparison was in Chicago during AXPONA, at @Johnseye's, with @lmitche and @Forehaven. John reported here: https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/30376-a-novel-way-to-massively-improve-the-sq-of-computer-audio-streaming/?do=findComment&amp;comment=808332. One of the interesting findings had to do with comparing the SR-4 to the SR-7 when both rails were active, and I wanted to test that again in my setup.

 

While I listened with multiple tracks, I'll zoom in on one, perhaps familiar to more people, to discuss my findings. The piece is Limehouse Blues from Jazz at the Pawnshop. I have the 24/192 version. From about 3:00 to 4:00 is a vibraphone (?) solo, followed from 4:00 onwards by a set of chords on piano and double bass. Take a listen if you want to familiarize yourself with it. I'll wait. ?

 

My baseline setup at this time is:

• TLS OCXO switch (LPS-1.2) > Zenith SE > tX-USBultra (SR-4) > Mytek Brooklyn DAC+ (JS-2)
• Mutec Ref 10 reference clock > tX-USBultra

After listening on the baseline config, it was time for some comparisons.

 

Comparison 1 - Swap SR-4 with one rail of SR-7 to power tX-USBultra:  To be honest, I was not expecting much of a difference here, given our findings in Chicago. Not so this time! As good as the SR-4 is, this was a noticeable improvement. In the vibraphone solo, the notes took on an almost luminous tone, the texture of the instrument was more palpable. Beyond that, the sense of the space (the Pawnshop club) was much more real. There was a lot more micro-detail - background conversation, movement, etc. Finally, the image seemed more spacious. I always describe this effect as a sharpened focus, as if you have a cleaner, sharper lens into the music.

 

Comparison 2 - now use the 2nd rail of the SR-7 to power the Brooklyn DAC+ in place of the JS-2: This was even more of a jump in SQ! Everything I described above improved even more. There was significantly more palpability and excitement to the space. The key additional ingredient was another bump in dynamics. To describe this, focus on the immediate aftermath of the vibraphone solo starting right around 4:00. The chords by the piano, double bass, and drums now just throb with energy. It's hard to describe how the same music I was listening to in the baseline config just has a new level of energy and excitement to it. Since this scenario is using both rails of the SR-7, I was vigilant for the excess bass we heard in Chicago. There was none. Bass was tight and satisfying.

 

Comparison 3 - now go back to SR-4 to power the tX-USBultra: The point of this experiment is to address the finding from Chicago. Does using both rails of the SR-7 compromise the SQ? How does SQ change when replacing one of them for the SR-4? Answer: the SQ degrades approximately the same magnitude as the improvement in comparison 1.

 

Tentative Conclusions:

• Despite the superlative performance delivered by the JS-2 and SR-4, the SR-7 found a way to improve on it quite significantly. Now I understand why @romaz speaks so highly of this PSU!
• I did not hear any noticeable SQ penalty for using both rails of the SR-7 in the chain. This is contrary to what was observed in John's system. Perhaps the use of DR in both rails of Eric's system provides a level of resilience from cross-rail intermodulation noise.
• While I could not isolate and evaluate the sonic impact of DR and XL, there is no doubt the combination of SR7, DR, and XL results in a PSU par excellence!

Over the next few weeks, I'll revisit this and add more findings from running the SR-7 in Eric's system. Stay tuned!

 

 

 

 

Thanks for that comparison with the SR4.  

 

While I think an SR7 would have been overkill for my system it nevertheless rankles that I no longer have the opportunity to buy one new.  I don‘t expect to see many on the used market, and wouldn’t expect to see much (if any) depreciation when I do see one.

[str-1]

For those still interested in the Paul Hynes SR7 - https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/38614-the-paul-hynes-sr4-psu/?do=findComment&comment=845476

 

[str-1]

Sorry if this derails some of the more recent topics of discussion but as this thread seems to attract some of the most knowledgable and helpful people on CA I thought I would post my question here.  

 

Generally speaking, should USB cables used for connecting audio devices (in my case, connecting an Innuos Zenith SE to a tX-USBultra, and the tX-U to a Chord Blu 2) be as short as possible, or are there reasons why the cables should be a minimum length regardless of the distance between the sockets to be connected?

 

I’m asking because I am now tired of the ugly placement of the tX-U behind the Zenith SE, which was the only way I could use the 20cm Curious Link cable I originally bought to connect a microRendu to my Chord DAVE.  I want to buy a longer cable that will allow me to place the tX-U beside the Blu 2, which a 40cm or 50cm cable would allow me to do (the cable needs to have the 5v line for handshake purposes).  I bought the short Curious cable because the Curious website says short is best for USB, although it doesn’t say why.  But I also gained an understanding when researching into connecting the Blu 2 to DAVE that it was best to have BNC cables of at least 1.5m to reduce or eliminate the risk of reflections (I actually have heavily ferrited 1m Clearer Audio cables and can’t say I have noticed any problems with them).  Can reflections be an issue with USB cables (you can tell from that question that I am not a techie)?

 

I would like to go for a really good 40cm-50cm cable but would be prepared to go longer and pay more if there might be good sound quality reasons for doing so.  I would be very grateful for others thoughts on this.

[str-1]

4 hours ago, Superdad said:

 

Reflections are not a factor in USB cable signaling the way they are with S/PDIF cables.

 

That aside, USB cables of considerable length (as well a lot not properly engineered “audiophile” USB cables) really mess up USB signal integrity (elements of jitter, slew, amplitude, noise as seen on an eye-pattern).  Proper 90 ohm impedance is desirable as well.  So yes, in general a bit shorter is better—all else being equal.

 

Variations in signal integrity—which has an internal effect on the PHY and USB protocol processor inside the DAC/DDC, in turn causing ground-plane and packet dtata noise, in turn disturbing the DAC master clock—is why we hear differences between USB cables.

 

[Of course greatly improved signal integrity and impedance match (plus galvanic isolation to block leakage and other noise)—right at the DAC’s input—are the primary purposes of our popular ISO REGEN.]

 

Thanks, Alex.  Very helpful.

 

You might recall that I also have an ISO Regen and a couple of USPCBs, which, together with a mRendu 1.4, are waiting for me to decide what part of the house to run a second system to.  I found the USPCBs to be clearly better than the Curious Link cable but sadly they are not usable with the physical makeup of my current living room system.  I was also very happy with the ISO Regen but ended up getting the tX-USBultra mainly because after always wanting to own a Paul Hynes power supply I snapped up an SR4 when that came out and found better tonal synergy with the tX-U. Had I stayed with the ISO Regen I suspect I would have preferred that with the LPS-1.2 (I have two LPS-1s).

[str-1]

A while back some (including myself) were wondering how the SOtM sCLK-OCX10 would compare to the Mutec REF 10.  I think one or two were hoping to do this comparison but I cannot remember seeing a write-up.  Has anyone been able to compare the two?

 

My interest in this is renewed now that I have managed to take over a cancelled order for a Paul Hynes SR7.  I have still to finalise the spec with Paul but expect I will have to do this before I receive the Hugo Mscaler I have ordered.  One thing to decide on is whether to spec the SR7 as high as I can for a 2-rail supply to power the Mscaler (at 12V) and my current standard spec 9V tX-USBultra, or go for a 3-rail, which could accommodate Mscaler, an upgraded tX-USBultra and an sCLK-OCX10.  But if there is a compelling reason to get a Mutec REF 10 instead of the sCLK-OCX10, I can go with a 2-rail SR7 and just upgrade the tX-USBultra.

 

My current system is: Innuos Zenith SE > tX-USBultra (SR4) > Blu2 > DAVE > headphones

 

I would be grateful for any thoughts.

[str-1]

21 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

 

I have not compared the two but spoke with someone who has. No formal review has been written.  This is one person's opinion, but the REF10 was better.

Thanks for that.  

[str-1]

16 minutes ago, limniscate said:

@austinpop, @auricgoldfinger, and I should be comparing a stock OCX10, a modified OCX10, and the Ref10 next week.

That is good news.  Many will be looking forward to learning about your findings.

[str-1]

From Paul: 

 

“Unfortunately DR rails require two regulator modules per rail so the SR5 chassis can only support 1 DR rail, the SR7MR2 chassis can only support one DR rail and the SR7MR4 chassis can only support two DR rails.”

 

[str-1]

On 8/11/2018 at 9:34 PM, R1200CL said:

 

Yes, same here. If the USPCB was just a few mm extended i could use the Metz 90 degree ethernet connector. 

 

I’m hoping for an extended version of the USPCB.

 

An extended USPCB, perhaps 50%-75% longer, and without any compromise in SQ, would be great.  I understand it was designed with use between ISO Regen, micro/ultraRendu etc primarily in mind but it would be the perfect solution for so many more usage cases if a little longer.  Probably greater prospect of sales than the microUSB, which I hope is selling sufficiently well for Uptone.

[str-1]

4 hours ago, limniscate said:

2.  Modded OCX10 versus Mutec Ref10

The Mutec Ref10 was slightly better than the modded OCX10.  

 

Thanks for reporting back on that comparison.

 

For the Mutec to still be better than the modded OCX10, even with the latter enjoying superior (?) power supply from the SR7, there must be a clear gap between the Mutec and a standard unmodded OCX10.  Would that be a fair assumption based on your experience?

[str-1]

1 hour ago, austinpop said:

BTW - to add to the results of the Austin Clock Meet, that @limniscate and @auricgoldfinger already described. We also had access to a vanilla OCX-10 with sPS-500 PSU. The 2 key takeaways for me were:

1. It is possible to get very, very close - though not quite equal - to the SQ of the Mutec Ref 10 with the OCX-10. It requires:
   • the Evox caps and the eABS-200 RF/EMI paper, and
   • an SR-7 PSU
2. There is a big SQ jump going from the vanilla OCX-10 to:
   • the Evox caps and the eABS-200 RF/EMI paper, and
   • stepping up from sPS-500 to the JS-2 to the SR-7. Each PSU step is significant, and not subtle.

Thanks for that report back.  Were you able to use the same cables when comparing?

 

The weight of evidence seems to argue strongly for a reference clock in systems with numerous clocks to sync but I’m wondering how much of the reported benefit from a modded SR7-powered OCX-10 I would get in my Zenith SE/Blu2/DAVE system where I would only have a tX-USBultra to connect to.

 

It will be a while before I can give this a try.  I’ve still to finalise the spec for my SR7 with Paul Hynes and won’t be getting that until sometime in the New Year, by when an Mscaler will have replaced my Blu2.  I will also have to upgrade my standard spec tX-U for clock input.  Probably best to go for three rails with the SR7 - one DR and two non-DR (if I can do that).

[str-1]

5 hours ago, austinpop said:

To your question - I am like you, I only use the Ref-10 to provide a reference clock signal to exactly one device, the tX-USBultra, and it still makes a huge difference. You do not need a plurality of devices to benefit from a reference clock. This is also what, I believe, Roy was using in his setup when he still had an SE.

 

Thanks.  That’s reassuring.

 

5 hours ago, austinpop said:

One can never have too many rails of SR-7. Especially as it is a resource that won't be around for long. I've gone whole hog on my SR-7 build, with 3 rails of DRXL, in a Streacon chassis. Hoo-ah!

 

I’ll have another chat with Paul about the possibilities for maxing out on the specs but  I’m thinking at the moment that either two rails of DRXL or three rails with one of DRXL will be as far as I will go.  If I go for two rails, I would still have the SR4, which I could assign to whichever of tX-U, OCX-10 and Mscaler shows least improvement from a SR7 rail.

[str-1]

Enthused by the recent reference clock comparisons undertaken by @limniscate, @auricgoldfinger and @austinpopI have been looking at the specs of both the Mutec REF 10 and the sCLK-OCX10, and with both there is one measurement that has left me wondering.  Are the “Aging” figures quoted of an order that would suggest performance deterioration would be audible within a 5-10 year period?

 

Taking for example the figures for the Mutec:

Aging after 30 days operation: 
< +/-0.0002 ppm (per day), 
< +/-0.03 ppm (1st year), 
< +/-0.2 ppm (10 years)

 

I realise these are very, very small deteriorations given that stability when shipped is quoted as < +/- 0.01 ppm.  But I am wondering how long it would be before I would be able to hear a difference between the aging unit and a fully run-in new one?

 

I’ve followed appropriate links from the index and done a search but have not been able to find any posts in this thread touching on oscillator aging.  Possibly because it is nothing to worry about?

[str-1]

19 hours ago, austinpop said:

 

Wow, that's a really good question. I've never really paid any attention to this metric. It would be really useful if someone from Mutec could jump in and answer this question.

 

Also posted a slightly extended question on the Mutec REF 10 thread - https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/31857-mutec-ref-10-masterclock/?do=bookmarkComment&comment=867182&csrfKey=b2011515f303be04fa0de62e7bef68b1&isButton=

 

[str-1]

Is there anything among the cable tweaks mentioned on this thread that would be usable with Uptone Audio’s USPCB?