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

[austinpop]

Update: Zenith SE with or without sMS-200ultra

 

One difference between @flkin and @Kritpoon's recent findings with the Antipodes DX3 and the SOtM trifecta, and @limniscate's and mine with the Zenith SE, has to do with the presence of the sMS-200ultra.

 

If you'll recall, before I got the SE, my optimal configuration was:

• Router > Win 10 bridged > shunted switch > modded switch > modded sMS-200 > ISO-Regen > tX-USBultra > Codex DAC
• Cybershaft OP-14 providing the reference clock to the trifecta (switch, sMS, tX) via the tX master clock input
• Roon Core on Win 10, music files on NAS

After much experimentation, I determined the new optimal configuration (i.e. with maximum SQ) was:

• Router > shunted switch > modded switch > Zenith SE > tX-USBultra > Codex DAC
• Cybershaft OP-14 providing the reference clock to the tX and switch via the tX master clock input
• Roon Core on Zenith SE, music on local SSD

Based on this finding, I sold my ISO-Regen and modded sMS-200, along with their respective LPS-1 PSUs. 

 

Fast forward to this week. Since I had ample PSUs on hand, along with Eric's Ref 10 and sMS-200ultra, I decided to revisit the question of whether the sMS-200ultra still has a place in a Zenith SE topology. This is in light of @flkin's observation that in their experiments, they found the combo of Antipodes AND SOtM trifecta to sound the best. In the context of my system, the question can be framed as follows: Does the addition of the sMS-200ultra in the path add or detract SQ? I compared the following 2 topologies:

• Baseline SE chain: Router > shunted switch > modded switch (LSP-1.2) > Zenith SE > tX-USBultra (SR-4) > Codex DAC, vs.
• SE with full trifecta: Router > shunted switch > modded switch (LPS-1.2) > Zenith SE > modded switch (LPS-1.2) > sMS-200ultra (LPS-1.2) > tX-USBultra (SR-4) > Codex DAC
• NOTE: there is only one modded switch - the reason it is shown twice in the chain above is to indicate data flow. Connectivity-wise, both the SE and the sMS-200ultra attach to the modded switch
• Both sMS-200ultra and tX-USBultra reference clocked by the Ref 10

Result: The baseline SE configuration sounds better, as before. The introduction of the sMS-200ultra back into the chain seems to add a small bit of harshness and a flattening of the image, while delivering no perceptible increase in resolution, as one would expect with another reclocked component in the chain. There is a certain calm, inky-black smoothness to the SE that gets lost when you add the sMS-200ultra back in.

 

I don't really think that, based on this, one can make any associative conclusions of the DX3 vs the SE. I would caution against it. For my part, I am just glad that I could recoup some of the expense of the SE by selling the modded sMS, ISO-R, and 2 LPS-1s!

[BigAlMc]

7 hours ago, auricgoldfinger said:

 

For me, the $64,000 question is how my sCLK-OCX10 (with upgraded Evox capacitors and eABS-200 EMF paper) powered by a Paul Hynes SR5DRXL compares to the REF10 with its slightly lower phase noise at 10Hz and a lesser internal power supply.

 

Hi @auricgoldfinger, 

 

Interesting. So on paper at least the sCLK-OCX10 has a theoretical advantage if we assume that the SPS-500 is a better power supply than the built in PSU in the REF10? 

 

Is that a fair interpretation? 

 

Also are the Evox capacitors and EMF paper upgrades something you did yourself or an option to ask SOtM for? 

 

@austinpop - great work as usual Rajiv. Fascinating stuff. Feel like I'm riding on your coat tails somewhat. Just ordered a silver DC cable for my LPS-1.2 to TX-USBultra 

 

Cheers, 

Alan 

 

[flkin]

34 minutes ago, austinpop said:

Update: Zenith SE with or without sMS-200ultra

 

Baseline SE chain: Router > shunted switch > modded switch (LSP-1.2) > Zenith SE > tX-USBultra (SR-4) > Codex DAC, vs.

• SE with full trifecta: Router > shunted switch > modded switch (LPS-1.2) > Zenith SE > modded switch (LPS-1.2) > sMS-200ultra (LPS-1.2) > tX-USBultra (SR-4) > Codex DAC
• NOTE: there is only one modded switch - the reason it is shown twice in the chain above is to indicate data flow. Connectivity-wise, both the SE and the sMS-200ultra attach to the modded switch
• Both sMS-200ultra and tX-USBultra reference clocked by the Ref 10

Result: The baseline SE configuration sounds better, as before. The introduction of the sMS-200ultra back into the chain seems to add a small bit of harshness and a flattening of the image, while delivering no perceptible increase in resolution, as one would expect with another reclocked component in the chain. There is a certain calm, inky-black smoothness to the SE that gets lost when you add the sMS-200ultra back in.

 

I don't really think that, based on this, one can make any associative conclusions of the DX3 vs the SE. I would caution against it. For my part, I am just glad that I could recoup some of the expense of the SE by selling the modded sMS, ISO-R, and 2 LPS-1s!

 

Thanks @austinpop for the above revisit. I agree that it shouldn't be used a a way to compare the SE and the DX3 as there are, due to the inherent complexity of the Trifecta systems, so many other variables like cables and power supplies at play here. 

 

In our tests with the Antipodes DX3, the sMS200 was powered by the sPS-500 (Cardas golden reference power chord) going through a 1A LT3045 chip via a Ghent DC cable prior and Uptone DC cable after the chip. And clocked by the Ref10 via the tX-USBultra

 

And this was the renderer we compared to the one built inside the DX3.

 

Pretty different from your setup ?

[Confused]

8 hours ago, auricgoldfinger said:

 

For me, the $64,000 question is how my sCLK-OCX10 (with upgraded Evox capacitors and eABS-200 EMF paper) powered by a Paul Hynes SR5DRXL compares to the REF10 with its slightly lower phase noise at 10Hz and a lesser internal power supply.

1

The on-paper specs of the sCLK-OCX10 look superb, no question.  One key differentiator is that the REF10 is square wave and the sCLK-OCX10 is sine wave.  I am sure both will be excellent performers, as to which is best, or what the audible differences might be, I have no idea.  It would be a fascinating comparison.

[flkin]

I've had a chance to measure the ground of @Kritpoon's Habst BNC cable. It's the 5N Cyro shown in the website. The photo there shows the ground cable without the BNC connector attached. 

 

 

The ground cable is slightly thinner than the signal cable and has a different shielding weave material. 

 

 

With a multi-meter it’s seems that electrically both the center and side of the the ground phono connector is completely separated from the twin signal cables. The  ground cable seems to terminate in the buldge at the end of the cable.

 

 

I wonder if this is one of those magnetic wraps?

 

[Summit]

2 hours ago, austinpop said:

Update: Zenith SE with or without sMS-200ultra

 

One difference between @flkin and @Kritpoon's recent findings with the Antipodes DX3 and the SOtM trifecta, and @limniscate's and mine with the Zenith SE, has to do with the presence of the sMS-200ultra.

 

If you'll recall, before I got the SE, my optimal configuration was:

• Router > Win 10 bridged > shunted switch > modded switch > modded sMS-200 > ISO-Regen > tX-USBultra > Codex DAC
• Cybershaft OP-14 providing the reference clock to the trifecta (switch, sMS, tX) via the tX master clock input
• Roon Core on Win 10, music files on NAS

After much experimentation, I determined the new optimal configuration (i.e. with maximum SQ) was:

• Router > shunted switch > modded switch > Zenith SE > tX-USBultra > Codex DAC
• Cybershaft OP-14 providing the reference clock to the tX and switch via the tX master clock input
• Roon Core on Zenith SE, music on local SSD

Based on this finding, I sold my ISO-Regen and modded sMS-200, along with their respective LPS-1 PSUs. 

 

Fast forward to this week. Since I had ample PSUs on hand, along with Eric's Ref 10 and sMS-200ultra, I decided to revisit the question of whether the sMS-200ultra still has a place in a Zenith SE topology. This is in light of @flkin's observation that in their experiments, they found the combo of Antipodes AND SOtM trifecta to sound the best. In the context of my system, the question can be framed as follows: Does the addition of the sMS-200ultra in the path add or detract SQ? I compared the following 2 topologies:

• Baseline SE chain: Router > shunted switch > modded switch (LSP-1.2) > Zenith SE > tX-USBultra (SR-4) > Codex DAC, vs.
• SE with full trifecta: Router > shunted switch > modded switch (LPS-1.2) > Zenith SE > modded switch (LPS-1.2) > sMS-200ultra (LPS-1.2) > tX-USBultra (SR-4) > Codex DAC
• NOTE: there is only one modded switch - the reason it is shown twice in the chain above is to indicate data flow. Connectivity-wise, both the SE and the sMS-200ultra attach to the modded switch
• Both sMS-200ultra and tX-USBultra reference clocked by the Ref 10

Result: The baseline SE configuration sounds better, as before. The introduction of the sMS-200ultra back into the chain seems to add a small bit of harshness and a flattening of the image, while delivering no perceptible increase in resolution, as one would expect with another reclocked component in the chain. There is a certain calm, inky-black smoothness to the SE that gets lost when you add the sMS-200ultra back in.

 

I don't really think that, based on this, one can make any associative conclusions of the DX3 vs the SE. I would caution against it. For my part, I am just glad that I could recoup some of the expense of the SE by selling the modded sMS, ISO-R, and 2 LPS-1s!

 

I presume you perceive some SQ gain with a shunted switch directly followed by a modded switch. But do you have any insight to why and can’t the modded switch be shunted instead or is the reason for having one switch followed by another switch not to get the benefit of a shunted switch?

[seeteeyou]

If 0.5m Habst might seem to be expensive, here's another Viard Platinum HD Master Sync Clock 1.0M for $2,500

 

https://post76.hk/news/2017/11/viard-platinum-hd/

http://my-hiend.com/wp/法國線材專業品牌-viard-audio-ceo-訪談/

 

[Confused]

1 hour ago, seeteeyou said:

If 0.5m Habst might seem to be expensive, here's another Viard Platinum HD Master Sync Clock 1.0M for $2,500

Interesting, one thing I heard this week was tales of dCS fanatics trying various clock cables in the full dCS stack.  I have to caveat this, it is more or less third hand information, but it is food for thought nevertheless.  We are talking clock cables costing 2K, 3k, even 8K, ChordMusic, Transparent Ref XL, Nordost Odin, and so on.  Some of these cables make the Habst look cheap!  Apparently, the Shunyata Sigma & Alpha clock are as good as anything, at the bargain price of £2K and £1K respectively.  So the Shunyata Alpha vs Habst might be an interesting test, as they are at least similar money.  I could probably get hold of the Shunyata, can anyone lend me a Habst for a week or two?

[seeteeyou]

37 minutes ago, Confused said:

Apparently, the Shunyata Sigma & Alpha clock are as good as anything, at the bargain price of £2K and £1K respectively.

 

The best part about Shunyata should be the availability of BOTH 50Ω and 75Ω versions

 

https://www.thecableco.com/venom-s-pdif-5349.html

https://www.thecableco.com/venom-s-pdif-5350.html

https://www.thecableco.com/sigma-clock-50.html

https://www.thecableco.com/sigma-clock-75.html

 

We could also pay $100 and $50 to borrow the Sigma and Alpha respectively

 

https://www.thecableco.com/lending-library

 

BTW, they also have ground cables that are terminated with RCA plugs etc.

 

https://www.thecableco.com/venom-cgc-sgc-ground-cable.html

https://www.thecableco.com/alpha-cgc-sgc-ground-cable.html

https://www.thecableco.com/sigma-cgc-sgc-ground-cable.html

[zoltan]

I was wondering if someone might want to open a 'clock cables' thread. This discussion is in several threads now.

  

[rickca]

7 minutes ago, zoltan said:

I was wondering if someone might want to open a 'clock cables' thread. This discussion is in several threads now.

  

Good idea.  It's beginning to look like eventually this thread will cover just about everything.

[Kritpoon]

On 3/9/2018 at 1:16 AM, austinpop said:

Quote

Perhaps SOTM will be willing to mod the Antipodes DX for me? LOL...

 

Great idea. See what they say!

 

I havn't ask them yet, there are still some more experiments to try with flkin (per your suggestions), so once we are all done and can make some conclusion, perhaps the Antipodes with s-clkEX might not be neccessary

[Kritpoon]

On 3/9/2018 at 3:29 AM, rickca said:

So you have modified the MC-3+ USB to use an external linear PS?

 

Yes, I did. I just took out the back IEC inlet and its connection to the meanwell switching power supply inside. I tried to remove the whole Meanwell PS, but was't successful so I just soldered the output of the LPS-1 to each of the legs of the Meanwell that's connected to the main board.

[Kritpoon]

14 hours ago, austinpop said:

Quick Take: Ref 10 vs. OP-14

 

I picked up @limniscate's Ref 10 yesterday, and after about 24 hours of warm-up in my system, Eric stopped by this afternoon for some listening. I had already cheated, and done some listening last night, after only a few hours of warmup.

 

I used a 50 Ω output (#1) from the Ref 10, and the same Cybershaft 50 Ω 0.5m cable for both clocks, feeding my tX-USBultra. We had no other cables on had hand to compare.

 

Well, I can only confirm what @flkin and @Kritpoon already reported. The Ref 10 is just another level above the OP-14. If you've heard the effect of a reference clock, this is just more of the same. As my teen daughter would jokingly say: "more clockular!" The best analogy is the focus of a camera lens. Going from the OP-14 to the Ref 10, instruments take on an even more realistic dimension, extremely fine details become easier to discern.

 

So Bangkok and Austin both agree - the Ref 10 outperforms the Cybershaft OP-14. No contest. Dang it! 

 

But at least this difference is consistent with the published phase noise specs (Ref 10 has lower phase noise) and price (Ref 10 is pricier). You get what you pay for!

 

 

 

Thank you for the report. Also, as I was discussing with @flkin beside the phase noise differences, the REF10 output square wave pattern but the Cybershft OP-14 output is sine wave pattern. I wonder if differences in wave form have any contribution to the differences in performance? or the sound signature of the clock itself?

[seeteeyou]

http://www.audioaficionado.org/showthread.php?t=31846&page=11

Quote

It would be interesting as 50ohm cables are sine waves.

 

Is the nature of 50 ohm much more sensitive than 75 ohm using square waves or the typical spdif coax interface from transport to dac.

 

As such the conclusion seems for 50 ohm use, it is more sensitive.

 

I have a coax which cost at least the same as Sigma level cables, BUT ... looking at the construction definitely not a coaxial cable is the least bit, but sounds better than the even my Acrolink DA6100 (true 75ohm), which incidentally also cost more when used for the 75 ohm taps.

 

Many audiophile cables meant for digital are NOT coaxial cables under the hood.... handmade etc.... Yes, a belden 75ohm cable doesnt compare even to these offerings.

 

As 50ohm / 75 ohm can only be achieved by very precise spacing between the conductor and shield, there is absolutely no other way or amount or twisting / braiding that will allow this correct characteristics.

 

But again, there are arguments that unless running hundreds or thousands of meters any deviation affects transmission losses and in some case total loss of signal over the distance.

 

What are the characteristic sonic outcome when using precise cables for digital transmission? Are there any prominent characteristics not obtainable of any non compliant audiograde digital transmissions cables no meeting this strict standard? 

 

What do we listen for, this will be highly enlightening for the audiophile community.

 

http://www.audioaficionado.org/showthread.php?t=31846&page=8

Quote

10M sine waves would obviously benefit form using the 50 ohm variant and 75 ohm for PLL signals now that there are many new clocks being marketed.

 

Quote

TESTING STORY (50 versus 75-ohm, proper cables,"does it matter...?");

 

I was lucky enough to participate in 4+ month dedicated test with several audiophiles around the world, all with different equipment stacks (DCS, Esoteric, Aurender, and several other vendors' products) and different clocks (DCS, SRS, BVA, Esoteric, Cybershaft) during which time we had no idea of each others' identity, location or equipment and clock equipment lists. We were all sent the same, uniform-looking cables with only colored tags on them to tell them apart. All cables were 1.5 meters in length. The only thing that was different on some of the cables were the use of 50-ohm versus 75-ohm BNC connectors which are easily discernible as to which is which due to a key visual difference regarding the dielectric around the center tap. As it turned out though, the vendor lead for the testing had mixed different cable specs (50 and 75) with different connectors so at the end of the test among other things we found that there were pure 50-ohm cables, pure 75-ohm cables, 50-ohm cables with 75-ohm connectors and 75-ohm cables with 50-ohm connectors. Clocking also spanned 'word clocks' as well as 'master clocks' and clocks that had taps for both word clock outputs as well as master clock output frequencies...
We were instructed to test against our local ‘reference’ cables; in my case it was against WW Platinum Starlight 75-ohm BNC, a Kubala-Sosna EMOTION 75-ohm and a custom-built EMOTION 50-ohm which has its own interesting history and contents that I will not go into here, and an Esoteric 8N-A2000 with
The 8N-A2000 arguably the acknowledged heavyweight champ for years in the world of true 50-ohm clock cables. Not all digital cables are meant to be or suited for clocking purposes as has been noted before.
As an aside, all testers came from some of the same but also different forums. We were given strict instructions not to mention we were testing anything related to cables for 50 or 75-ohm clocking or any other aspect of the test. To remove any potential bias from the equation, the cables tested were NOT production cables or prototypes contrary to what we thought. They literally were telecommunications high-speed quality cables from a major OEM rated for 50-ohm or 75-ohm with BNCs applied as mentioned about also from high-bandwidth telecom cables/parts suppliers. All test cables were enclosed in simple black tech-flex with no markings at all beyond the color tags.

 

In each and every case, all testers would summarize their multi-week testing with each cable (long enough to ensure day 1 through day n and "n+" impressions (i.e. from initial connection through full 2-week burn-in and beyond privately to the test lead and what material was used to test (RBCD, SACD, streaming, etc...) and the cable color-tagged under test.
We were all asked to test across different source types (and all did...). The surprising thing when all was said and done 5 months later was that the notes of each tester were copy-pasted verbatim into a single doc and sent with only first names mentioned. Some started the test of the opinion that 50 versus 75 should matter and be adhered to (why else would high-end vendors like Esoteric go to such lengths to cover this in their markings, manuals, etc... after all?!?) and some started predisposed to the common forum/vendor-speak of the last year or so,...("as long as you are not using long cables it does not matter,...they won't operate like a transmission line at short lengths,..."). 
 

Summary: The way I read the testers’ output and my own is that without exception all testers' experience was more or less of the form that 50-ohm cables on 50-ohm circuits result in the best overall sound quality, precision of the overall musical experience and note-by-note precision, duration, size, color, musicality, etc.....AND using 75-ohm on a 50-ohm circuit resulted in degraded sound quality, less precise and accurate imaging, bass articulation in particular, etc...Furthermore, using a proper 50-ohm cable on a 75-ohm circuit actually sounded better in several ways that a proper 75-ohm cable BUT not the reverse config.
There were interesting results with 50-ohm cables with 75-ohm BNCs on a 75-ohm circuit BUT the reverse (75-ohm cable with 50-ohm connectors on a 50-ohm circuit) was to be avoided due to detrimental effects on the sound, imaging, etc....In short, through this exhaustive test seemed to prove that despite what even Esoteric is saying today, 2 years after the discontinuation of an Esoteric 8N-A2000 pure 50-ohm cable which is still one of the finest in the world (during whose manufacturing & sales years Esoteric was singing a VERY different tune and advised clients that it DOES matter), it seems that using the properly rated cable on a given circuit DOES make a difference regardless of length due to the frequency at which these signals occur.
 

Footnote: After the testing as well as before had me using various high-end 50 and 75-ohm cables from 3 different manufacturers including 2 coveted and rare Esoteric-Mexcel 8N-A2000s but also a couple of high-end custom builds and 2 stock builds from 2 different/other manufacturers. In all cases before and also after the above 5 months of testing I admit that I always heard a difference and preferred the 'match the specs and RTFM approach with cables and gear but in the last 5 months I've had the good fortune of being able to move to the best 50-ohm cable I've used ever, the Shunyata SIGMA “CLOCK 50” and have concluded once and for all that 50-ohm very much matters where it's called for.
 

I will also say that my last day in testing labs or other 'very specific places' where I had any hands on or desire for that level of details for engineer-level tests, specs, etc....was in the early 1980s. For audio, and the testing above, the results I'm talking about come from the ear/hearing level of focusing only the music. For my money, I'll stick with what I heard, i.e. that where 50-ohm is called for and the same for 75-ohm in clocking or other applications, the best thing to do for the best and most musical and accurate result is to match cables to connection types and make sure you have components from manufacturers that also properly implement the spec in each case as this is all for naught if they don't stick to a tight implementation of 75-ohm versus 50-ohm for each application where it's called for.
 

All FWIW and IMO..

 

 

[limniscate]

@austinpop forgot to add that I was doing the tests blind.  I thought I knew what some of the changes were because I could kind of hear him connecting/disconnecting, but it turned out I was wrong!  E.g. the silver DC cable versus the copper one, I assumed it was a power supply change!

[Kritpoon]

6 hours ago, flkin said:

 

Thanks @austinpop for the above revisit. I agree that it shouldn't be used a a way to compare the SE and the DX3 as there are, due to the inherent complexity of the Trifecta systems, so many other variables like cables and power supplies at play here. 

 

In our tests with the Antipodes DX3, the sMS200 was powered by the sPS-500 (Cardas golden reference power chord) going through a 1A LT3045 chip via a Ghent DC cable prior and Uptone DC cable after the chip. And clocked by the Ref10 via the tX-USBultra

 

And this was the renderer we compared to the one built inside the DX3.

 

Pretty different from your setup ?

 

@flkin I didn't know you have that goodies connected between the SMS-500 and the SMS-200Ultra!

[auricgoldfinger]

7 hours ago, BigAlMc said:

 

Hi @auricgoldfinger, 

 

Interesting. So on paper at least the sCLK-OCX10 has a theoretical advantage if we assume that the SPS-500 is a better power supply than the built in PSU in the REF10? 

 

Is that a fair interpretation? 

 

Also are the Evox capacitors and EMF paper upgrades something you did yourself or an option to ask SOtM for? 

 

@austinpop - great work as usual Rajiv. Fascinating stuff. Feel like I'm riding on your coat tails somewhat. Just ordered a silver DC cable for my LPS-1.2 to TX-USBultra 

 

Cheers, 

Alan 

 

 

If I remember correctly, someone in the REF10 thread heard an improvement in SQ after modifying his REF10 to be powered his Paul Hynes PSU.  Perhaps the sPS-500 is better than the internal REF10 PSU, but there is no way to know for sure.

 

The Evox capacitors and EMF paper upgrades are something SOtM is doing for me.  There are typically upgrades available that are not mentioned on their site, so it is always a good idea to ask May about additional options. 

 

I had the Evox capacitors installed in the sPS-500 that came with the OCX10, and when I swapped it with the sPS-500 (with standard capacitors) that powers my tX-USBultra, I definitely hear a difference.  The sound is clearer and more open with the Evox capacitors.

 

 

[auricgoldfinger]

6 hours ago, Confused said:

The on-paper specs of the sCLK-OCX10 look superb, no question.  One key differentiator is that the REF10 is square wave and the sCLK-OCX10 is sine wave.  I am sure both will be excellent performers, as to which is best, or what the audible differences might be, I have no idea.  It would be a fascinating comparison.

 

In theory, the actual analog sine wave ought to be superior to a digitally approximated square wave.  In my opinion, it's analogous to the debate over analog vs. digitally reproduced music.  Maybe the analog is superior at the $250,000 system level, but for us mere mortals, there may not be an audible difference.  Even if there is a difference between the REF10 and sCLK-OCX10, it could be a function of phase noise or power supplies and not necessarily the wave type.

[Johnseye]

15 hours ago, austinpop said:

Quick Take: Ref 10 vs. OP-14

 

I picked up @limniscate's Ref 10 yesterday, and after about 24 hours of warm-up in my system, Eric stopped by this afternoon for some listening. I had already cheated, and done some listening last night, after only a few hours of warmup.

 

I used a 50 Ω output (#1) from the Ref 10, and the same Cybershaft 50 Ω 0.5m cable for both clocks, feeding my tX-USBultra. We had no other cables on had hand to compare.

 

Well, I can only confirm what @flkin and @Kritpoon already reported. The Ref 10 is just another level above the OP-14. If you've heard the effect of a reference clock, this is just more of the same. As my teen daughter would jokingly say: "more clockular!" The best analogy is the focus of a camera lens. Going from the OP-14 to the Ref 10, instruments take on an even more realistic dimension, extremely fine details become easier to discern.

 

So Bangkok and Austin both agree - the Ref 10 outperforms the Cybershaft OP-14. No contest. Dang it! 

 

But at least this difference is consistent with the published phase noise specs (Ref 10 has lower phase noise) and price (Ref 10 is pricier). You get what you pay for!

 

 

 

Given the price difference between the two, is it a $2000 improvement?  Understanding that if $ is no object one would buy the Ref 10.

Put another way, is there another place in someone's system where $2k would be put to better use and the OP-14 will suffice?

 

[seeteeyou]

IMHO it's also worth noting that nobody ever tried any great 50Ω cables (e.g. Esoteric / Shunyata / SOtM etc.) with Cybershaft OP-14 yet, the gap between both clocks might be narrowed if a level playing field could be achieved.

[Confused]

An update of my adventures with the Mutec REF10 and SOtM 'bundle'.  One week ago I was posting that whilst I could detect some real magic with the SOtM kit, I did have some reservations, specifically a slightly unpleasant 'glassy' characteristic, or a slight 'digital edge'.  I have said before that I am not a great believer in 'burn in', but the advice from a few people was that the SOtM kit needs 100 hours, 200 hours, maybe more.  I have spent the vast majority of last week 'away from my system', but I did leave the SOtM kit streaming away.  It says something about the stability of the SOtM kit that fed from Roon with a playlist many days long, it was still streaming away this morning, five days straight without a hitch.

 

Anyway, due to my reservations about the SOtM kit, I had decided that today I would try running some experiments, switching my old faithful microRendu in and out of the system.  Prior to doing this, I spent some time simply listening to the new set-up, which is sMS-200Ultra to tX-USBultra (sPS-500 Powered), to Mutec MC3+USB, with each of these devices clocked from the REF10.  First to say, I was a lot happier with the way everything was sounding today.  In addition, I had had a few thoughts during the week.  I run Roon / HQPlayer, and my preferred HQPlayer settings have been honed by many months experimenting using my previous mR / MC3+USB front end.  So what I was thinking is that maybe with the SOtM bundle & REF10 in place, maybe I could get a more satisfactory result with different HQPLayer settings.  So for a while this morning I tried a few different options in HQPlayer, and even tried simply running Roon RAAT direct.  This was an interesting exercise.  First to say that I planned to do this to see if the 'glassy' treble could be tamed, but listening this morning indicated that the glassy treble was nowhere near as big an issue as it appeared to be last week.  Nevertheless, this was still an interesting exercise.  The main conclusion is that with the SOtM bundle and REF10 in place, the system seems far more sensitive to changes in HQPlayer, and the delta between Roon RAAT and HQPlayer is now far more apparent.  So I definitely need to spend more time fine-tuning in this area.  For the record, HQPlayer provided far more satisfying results than RAAT direct.  RAAT did nominally sound a little more 'full fat', but via HQPlayer everything sounded far more nuanced and articulate.  At this point I realised that I could spend the rest of the weekend playing with HQPlayer settings, but what I really wanted to do was the mR comparisons, so for now I reverted back to my previously favored poly-sinc-xtr.

 

In order to establish the influence of the SOtM kit, I planned to try the following:

 

1. sMS-200Ultra to tX- USBultra to MC3+USB (all REF10 clocked)

2. microRendu to MC3+USB (MC3 clocked by REF10)

3. microRendu to tXUSBUltra to MC3+USB. (tX and MC3 REF10 clocked)

 

OK, this may appear to some as a little bit of a 'David vs Goliath' test, with the little mR being a fraction of the price of the SOtM kit, and as a spoiler alert, the result is pretty much as you might guess, but there are some subleties in the results that were certainly very interesting and informative to myself.

 

Going from 1 to 2, there was a loss of detail and subtlety, so where layers in the bass are revealed by 1, this is replaced by a nice solid bass with 2, but some nuances lost.  That said, microRendu to MC3+USB (2) was a really good listen, yes some subtleties were lost, but it was not like going from a good front end to a bad one, it was terrific to listen to.  So you could say that the microRendu to MC3+USB was a nice easy listen, but ultimately lacks the resolution and subtleties of the sMS-200Ultra to tX- USBultra.

 

Then on to 3, adding the tXUSBUltra in between the mR and the MC3+USB.  This was actually a bit of a revelation, adding the tXUSBUltra somehow retained the pleasant character of the mR, but everything was so much sharper and in focus, plus overall dynamics were improved.  I actually spent quite a lot of time listening to this set-up, somehow it suited me, just plain thoroughly enjoyable to listen to.

 

Having enjoyed 3 so much, it was then back to 1, and yes, it is the best, with the sMS-200ultra back in the chain simply adds in those subtle nuances.

 

So am I 100% happy with the SOtM bundle?  No, but I am now an order of magnitude happier with it than I was a week ago.

 

Plus, I am not finished yet.  A couple of hours ago Mr Postman arrived, delivering the 12v 3A Lithium Ion battery pack that I had ordered.  I bought this for a number of reasons, one of these reasons is that I have a non-audio related use for it, but the other reason results from a suggestion from @mozes.  OK, before you all jump in on this one, I think both myself and @mozes know enough about audio power to know that a battery is no substitute for a decent LPSU, low output impedance and all that good stuff.  But it does offer the chance to get an idea of what an LPSU might do.  Let's say for example that the battery kills dynamics, but does help clean up that last touch of glassy treble, then maybe I should be looking at adding a LPSU or two.  (Now where is that rabbit hole....)  I have other things to do now, so that is an experiment for tomorrow.

 

Meanwhile, I am now pretty happy, with a bit of fine tuning I should be there.  Oh, and a note to @austinpop, as I am now happy with the SOtM kit, this does now mean that I can sensibly do the SOtM bundle to Devialet direct via USB test.  It is on my list.  It's not top of my list though, I still have the SOtM modded switch to try.  After installing the SOtM kit, I deliberately left this out of the system, a case of me not wanting to change too many things at once, but now I think I am ready to give it a go.

 

To be continued .......

[BigAlMc]

26 minutes ago, auricgoldfinger said:

The Evox capacitors and EMF paper upgrades are something SOtM is doing for me.  There are typically upgrades available that are not mentioned on their site, so it is always a good idea to ask May about additional options. 

 

I had the Evox capacitors installed in the sPS-500 that came with the OCX10, and when I swapped it with the sPS-500 (with standard capacitors) that powers my tX-USBultra, I definitely hear a difference.  The sound is clearer and more open with the Evox capacitors.

 

Thanks. Good to know. I'm seriously tempted by the sCLK-OCX10 but would love to see a playoff against the REF10 first. 

 

Cheers, 

Alan 

[seeteeyou]

FYI - TEAC NT-505 and UD-505 seemed to be good for either rectangular (same as square?) or sine wave

 

https://teac.jp/int/product/nt-505/spec

https://teac.jp/int/product/ud-505/spec

Quote

Rectangle wave: equivalent to TTL levels
Sine wave: 0.5 to 1.0 Vrms

 

Then I checked the manual of NT-505 as linked below, 10MHz reference clock input turned out to be only applicable for Ethernet and USB inputs (as USB DAC as well as reading files off USB drives)

 

https://teac.jp/downloads/products/teac/nt-505/NT-505_OM_J_vA3.pdf#page=9

 

No Ethernet for UD-505 so reference clock would only kick in when USB input is used

 

https://teac.jp/downloads/products/teac/ud-505/UD-505_OM_J_vA.pdf#page=9

 

In other words, we just dunno which part(s) of both DACs could actually benefit from 10MHz reference clock.

[austinpop]

9 hours ago, BigAlMc said:

 

@austinpop - great work as usual Rajiv. Fascinating stuff. Feel like I'm riding on your coat tails somewhat. Just ordered a silver DC cable for my LPS-1.2 to TX-USBultra 

 

 

Thanks!

 

What silver DC cable did you order?