Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Message added by The Computer Audiophile

Important and useful information about this thread

Posting guidelines

History and index of useful posts

Most important: please realize this thread is about bleeding edge experimentation and discovery. No one has The Answer™. If you are not into tweaking, just know that you can have a musically satisfying system without doing any of the nutty things we do here.

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Solstice380 said:

@One and a half  All good info, thanks.   I never tried plugging either of the regens into the Topaz to run my system, just to use the power analyzer in there to see what the output of the Topaz looked like.  

 

It would be great if I could tame my incoming power issues passively.  I have just one SMPS in my server plugged into the Topaz now on a different circuit.  Everything else in my system, including network components and hard drives are on LPS. 

 

We we really like the Powervar where we use it.  

To clean up the distortion, the waveform needs measuring, work out the frequencies where the distortion is occurring, and make a filter that nulls that frequency for the rated load. By the time and effort to do that, far simpler and about 1/20th of the cost, to purchase an online sine wave UPS, add an isolation transformer on the output to remove the common mode noise junk from the UPS. Or a P5/P10 something, still with an ISO transf on the output.

AS Profile Equipment List        Say NO to MQA

Link to comment
21 hours ago, Solstice380 said:

 

I agree that we’d expect the regens to provide enough current - P10 is suppose to spit out 75A for some amount of time - but you have me curious again to try my amp direct.  Like you, I’m thinking we also under estimate the requirements of our components on an instantaneous basis.  Do we need the rise time of lightning?  ⚡️? ?

 

The spec of regenerator like PS audio P5 or P10 doesn’t show the amount of idle current/voltage/resistance. A P10 is only regenerate a small amount of idle power and if more power is needed it will regenerate more. If a P10 would have all 75 A on tap (all the time) it would consume a lot of power, get very hot and be much less efficient.

 

It’s maybe easier to understand a power regenerator if compare to an amp. A class A-amp with high bias always have all power on tap and don’t need any microprocessor to regulate the amount. A class A/B amp always have some power on tap (low bias) and a microprocessor that regulate than more power is needed. A class D amp have no power on tap idle and its microprocessor regulate the output power from 0 to 100 %.

 

A bigger power regenerator probably have a bit more power on tap all the time. But like with amps it’s not only the bias or quantity of power that’s of importance, the quality, power swing, impedance, resistance and filters/DC blockers used and so on are of equally significance.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Summit said:

 

Yes PS Audio’s power regenerator are more or less a class A/B amp, but are biased pretty low. Their older regenerator was biased higher. If the bias matter is another topic :). 

IIRC, I was told that the early versions like the P300, P500 were Class A based and as expected ran very hot.  In fact, a second version of the P300, etc had a cooling fan.  I have been using the P300 for front end components since it was first offered and have been using external cooling to extend the unit life.

 

I was under the impression that the latest series P5, P10, and now P20 might be Class D since even the largest does not have cooling?!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, auricgoldfinger said:

 

What BNC cables have you tried, and which is your favorite?

I am still using SOtM BNC cable, but plan to try some other cables once I have the power supply settled.  The cable I did try was swapping out the stock SMB cables to Pasternack RG316DS, and like it better, but not sure if that is due to this being a different cable, shorter, or both.

 

Have you receive your sCLK-OCX10 back?

Link to comment
Just now, elan120 said:

I am still using SOtM BNC cable, but plan to try some other cables once I have the power supply settled.  The cable I did try was swapping out the stock SMB cables to Pasternack RG316DS, and like it better, but not sure if that is due to this being a different cable, shorter, or both.

 

Have you receive your sCLK-OCX10 back?

 

I'm expecting to get the sCLK-OCX10 by the end of this week.  Sadly, the sPS-500 that came with it failed while powering my tX-USBultra, so I'm short a power supply at the moment and won't be able to use the sCLK-OCX10 until I get a replacement sPS-500.

 

 

 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, auricgoldfinger said:

 

I'm expecting to get the sCLK-OCX10 by the end of this week.  Sadly, the sPS-500 that came with it failed while powering my tX-USBultra, so I'm short a power supply at the moment and won't be able to use the sCLK-OCX10 until I get a replacement sPS-500.

Ouch...hope you will get sPS-500 issue work out soon.

 

I am using sPS-500 to power sCLK-OCX10 at the moment, and plan to try using JS-2 and see if I can detect any difference.

Link to comment

SOtM Master Clock + tX-USBultra  + Singxer SU-1 Build

Hi elan

Fascinating clocking config.

Would you kindly shed some light on the use of the clocks?

Are you using the SU-1 most for I2S output? 

What is your DAC?

Your tX-USBexp is inside a WIN10 server I suppose. Is it Roon server too?

Best rgds

Denis

Link to comment
55 minutes ago, dtossan said:

Would you kindly shed some light on the use of the clocks?

Are you using the SU-1 most for I2S output? 

What is your DAC?

Your tX-USBexp is inside a WIN10 server I suppose. Is it Roon server too?

Best rgds

Denis

Hi Dennis,

 

This upgrade project utilizing all 4 clock outputs from sCLK-EX clock board inside of txUSBUltra as shown in the diagram I attached.  One clock output (12MHz) is assigned to txUSBUltra already, as for the remaining 3, I use one output (48MHz) to change out stock txUSBexp clock, and the remaining two are used in SU-1, where one output to change out the stock 24MHz USB input clock, and the other output change out both 22.5792MHz and 24.576MHz output sampling clocks.

 

I do use I2S output from SU-1 connect to Holo Spring DAC.

 

txUSBexp is inside of my music PC running both HQPlayer and Roon, sending up-converted DSD512 signal to Spring DAC.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Regards,

Kevin

Link to comment
7 hours ago, elan120 said:

Ouch...hope you will get sPS-500 issue work out soon.

 

I am using sPS-500 to power sCLK-OCX10 at the moment, and plan to try using JS-2 and see if I can detect any difference.

 

 I note that the sPS-500 is a SMPS PSU, and the 7Vdc, 9Vdc, 12Vdc, 19Vdc selectable ranges only have a
  Voltage tolerance of  ±10%.

This means that the 12V output for example, could have an output voltage ranging from 10.8 to 13.2V !!! :o

This also makes me wonder how much the voltage rails vary under varying load conditions. (Voltage Regulation)

 

" AC power input
  Voltage : 100Vac ~240Vac
  Frequency : 50Hz / 60Hz
  Current : 2.5A >
DC power output
  Voltage : 7Vdc, 9Vdc, 12Vdc, 19Vdc selectable
  Voltage tolerance: ±10%
  Current limit:
    5A@ 7Vdc, 9Vdc, 12Vdc
    3.3A@ 19Vdc
  Current tolerance: ±10%
  Maximum output power :
    50W@100Vac <, +50℃ > inside temperature
Protection
  Output short
  Over temperature"

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, elan120 said:

This upgrade project utilizing all 4 clock outputs from sCLK-EX clock board inside of txUSBUltra as shown in the diagram I attached.  One clock output (12MHz) is assigned to txUSBUltra already, as for the remaining 3, I use one output (48MHz) to change out stock txUSBexp clock, and the remaining two are used in SU-1, where one output to change out the stock 24MHz USB input clock, and the other output change out both 22.5792MHz and 24.576MHz output sampling clocks.

 

 

Wow Kevin

Very innovative use of clocks to sync your SU-1 DDA as opposed to putting emphasis upstream.

Also very bold choice of Singxer SU-1 and Holo Spring DAC (is that level 1, 2 or 3?) - these have reputation in forum chatter as giant killers :).

Most interested in your AQ impressions, especially as you step thru the effects of the master clock and individual clocks.

Even better if your system in time can be compared with other clock-chained systems.

Denis

Link to comment
2 hours ago, dtossan said:

 

Wow Kevin

Very innovative use of clocks to sync your SU-1 DDA as opposed to putting emphasis upstream.

Also very bold choice of Singxer SU-1 and Holo Spring DAC (is that level 1, 2 or 3?) - these have reputation in forum chatter as giant killers :).

Most interested in your AQ impressions, especially as you step thru the effects of the master clock and individual clocks.

Even better if your system in time can be compared with other clock-chained systems.

Denis

Hi Denis,

 

I got the confidence this upgrade project likely will be successful from many iterations of SU-1 modifications prior to this sizable step, where previous power supply and oscillator modifications proved SU-1 can significantly elevate sound quality from Spring DAC (mine is L3), and the test of multiple better re-clocking cycles to music signal before entering DAC also show improved result both in my own system and inputs from many others here, which finally led me to this path.

 

When this upgrade shipment finally came, I first installed txUSBUltra in place of ISORegen with good, subtle improvement, once I have the sCLK-EX clocked SU-1 installed, SQ improvement moved up a good step forward, the final piece was adding the txUSBexp, it took the improvement up another notch, although not as much as sCLK-EX clocked SU-1, but still quite distinguishable, and I find with txUSBexp installed, it smooth out the overall presentation nicely.  Adding sCLK-OCX10 significantly help transformed my system, especially after a long, but clearly needed burn-in, music playback is now at a level ahead of my original expectation.

 

Hopefully I will get a chance to compare with other clock-chained systems later, but for now, I plan on getting a few things locked in, such as power supply and component matching, and RF cable selection...etc. in the near term so I can just enjoy the music for a short while.

 

Regards,

Kevin

Link to comment

A very brief update on my experiences with the SOtM 'bundle'. (sMS-200Ultra + tXUSButlra + sPS-500)  In earlier posts I have commented on the treble being more prominent than the mR, and maybe a little harsh.  I now think this is incorrect.  I have not had anywhere near as much time with my system as I would have liked recently, a simple case of work getting in the way of the rest of my life, but this weekend I did have a few hours for a bit of listening. 

 

What I am finding now is that with decently recorded material, the high frequency performance of the sMS-200Ultra + tXUSButlra is excellent, quite superb.  I still think treble sounds more prominent than with the mR, and here is the problem.  A lot of the music I listen to is by it's very nature the kind of stuff where recording quality is not always the best.  Sometimes the HF will sound a bit edgy and harsh in recordings of this type, but I can simply ignore this, it is what it is.  With the SOtM kit though, this issue becomes harder to ignore, perhaps creating some kind of psychoacoustic effect where the whole is improved significantly (versus mR), but this causes the bad in the recording itself to spring to the fore.  It is a curious thing, but it like the SOtM kit is making the good in recordings better, but anything bad in the HF is made massively more noticeable.   Obviously more transparent kit will make the bad in recordings easier to discern, this is logical, but the effect here is much more than that I think.  Perhaps a classic case of psychoacoustic effects requiring 200 hours for my brain to adjust.:|

 

I definitely need more listening time to fully understand this myself, it is hard to describe in words but the effect is quite fascinating .  To be continued!

Windows 11 PC, Roon, HQPlayer, Focus Fidelity convolutions, iFi Zen Stream, Paul Hynes SR4, Mutec REF10, Mutec MC3+USB, Devialet 1000Pro, KEF Blade.  Plus Pro-Ject Signature 12 TT for playing my 'legacy' vinyl collection. Desktop system; RME ADI-2 DAC fs, Meze Empyrean headphones.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Confused said:

A very brief update on my experiences with the SOtM 'bundle'. (sMS-200Ultra + tXUSButlra + sPS-500)  In earlier posts I have commented on the treble being more prominent than the mR, and maybe a little harsh.  I now think this is incorrect.  I have not had anywhere near as much time with my system as I would have liked recently, a simple case of work getting in the way of the rest of my life, but this weekend I did have a few hours for a bit of listening. 

 

What I am finding now is that with decently recorded material, the high frequency performance of the sMS-200Ultra + tXUSButlra is excellent, quite superb.  I still think treble sounds more prominent than with the mR, and here is the problem.  A lot of the music I listen to is by it's very nature the kind of stuff where recording quality is not always the best.  Sometimes the HF will sound a bit edgy and harsh in recordings of this type, but I can simply ignore this, it is what it is.  With the SOtM kit though, this issue becomes harder to ignore, perhaps creating some kind of psychoacoustic effect where the whole is improved significantly (versus mR), but this causes the bad in the recording itself to spring to the fore.  It is a curious thing, but it like the SOtM kit is making the good in recordings better, but anything bad in the HF is made massively more noticeable.   Obviously more transparent kit will make the bad in recordings easier to discern, this is logical, but the effect here is much more than that I think.  Perhaps a classic case of psychoacoustic effects requiring 200 hours for my brain to adjust.:|

 

I definitely need more listening time to fully understand this myself, it is hard to describe in words but the effect is quite fascinating .  To be continued!

 

Not sure where you are in eliminating noise from your home electricity or RF/EMI but doing so can help smooth out that high end treble.

Recording quality definitely play a part as well.

Link to comment

Finally Auralic did it! ? With their new beta update they added a auto reboot at a user selected time. I just set mine to 4AM. Why so happy you might ask? For many years I have noticed that every time I reboot my Aries Mini I smile from ear to ear. It improves SQ just about every time. Sometimes more sometimes less..but always some. Now I no longer need to reboot it myself to get that SQ boost. It will manage it all by its own while I am asleep (hopefully). Sounds +#%@$! amazing right now after the beta upgrade and I am pretty sure it is not all due to Auralics beta firmware. 

Thanks Auralic for minding both minor and major things for end consumers! ? 

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Johnseye said:

 

Not sure where you are in eliminating noise from your home electricity or RF/EMI but doing so can help smooth out that high end treble.

Recording quality definitely play a part as well.

I could do more with respect to RF/EMI elimination, in fact I do have some future plans in that area.  So yes, I agree this would help.  The thing is, it does not really explain what I have been experiencing with the sMS-200Ultra.  The first point is that with high quality recordings the HF appears to be pretty much pristine.  OK, maybe with a few other tweaks, maybe including RF/EMI elimination, the HF could be elevated to new highs (accidental pun), with the harsher recordings improving as well.  Then consider that I can change just one thing in my 'front end', that is swap the mR for the sMS-200Ultra, and this issue becomes apparent.  The rest, tX-USBultra, MC3+USB, REF10, my mains power and everything else, all remain the same.  I have even tried switching the sMS-200Ultra to battery power, which appears to make little difference to this issue.  It also occurs to me that the sMS-200Ultra should be better than the mR at eliminating noise issues.

 

My theory is that the sMS-200Ultra has done enough to clean up the presentation of virtually everything versus the mR.  This leads to the situation that remaining HF harshness that is simply inherent in the recording becomes disproportionately noticeable.  If I knew a bit more about psychoacoustics I could probably give my brain a good talking to! 

Windows 11 PC, Roon, HQPlayer, Focus Fidelity convolutions, iFi Zen Stream, Paul Hynes SR4, Mutec REF10, Mutec MC3+USB, Devialet 1000Pro, KEF Blade.  Plus Pro-Ject Signature 12 TT for playing my 'legacy' vinyl collection. Desktop system; RME ADI-2 DAC fs, Meze Empyrean headphones.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Cornan said:

Finally Auralic did it! ? With their new beta update they added a auto reboot at a user selected time. I just set mine to 4AM. Why so happy you might ask? For many years I have noticed that every time I reboot my Aries Mini I smile from ear to ear. It improves SQ just about every time. Sometimes more sometimes less..but always some. Now I no longer need to reboot it myself to get that SQ boost. It will manage it all by its own while I am asleep (hopefully). Sounds +#%@$! amazing right now after the beta upgrade and I am pretty sure it is not all due to Auralics beta firmware. 

Thanks Auralic for minding both minor and major things for end consumers! ? 

I also find that it’s best to reboot my router, wireless bridge and switch before streaming Tidal.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Confused said:

I could do more with respect to RF/EMI elimination, in fact I do have some future plans in that area.  So yes, I agree this would help.  The thing is, it does not really explain what I have been experiencing with the sMS-200Ultra.  The first point is that with high quality recordings the HF appears to be pretty much pristine.  OK, maybe with a few other tweaks, maybe including RF/EMI elimination, the HF could be elevated to new highs (accidental pun), with the harsher recordings improving as well.  Then consider that I can change just one thing in my 'front end', that is swap the mR for the sMS-200Ultra, and this issue becomes apparent.  The rest, tX-USBultra, MC3+USB, REF10, my mains power and everything else, all remain the same.  I have even tried switching the sMS-200Ultra to battery power, which appears to make little difference to this issue.  It also occurs to me that the sMS-200Ultra should be better than the mR at eliminating noise issues.

 

My theory is that the sMS-200Ultra has done enough to clean up the presentation of virtually everything versus the mR.  This leads to the situation that remaining HF harshness that is simply inherent in the recording becomes disproportionately noticeable.  If I knew a bit more about psychoacoustics I could probably give my brain a good talking to! 

The more revealing a system becomes, the more prominent the HF in bad recordings. Yet at the sametime, in good recordings the highs become more extended, smoother and sweeter. I think that is one of the reasons why Dave has a HF filter that can be switched on or off on the fly. I switch it on with old and poor recordings.

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Confused said:

I could do more with respect to RF/EMI elimination, in fact I do have some future plans in that area.  So yes, I agree this would help.  The thing is, it does not really explain what I have been experiencing with the sMS-200Ultra.  The first point is that with high quality recordings the HF appears to be pretty much pristine.  OK, maybe with a few other tweaks, maybe including RF/EMI elimination, the HF could be elevated to new highs (accidental pun), with the harsher recordings improving as well.  Then consider that I can change just one thing in my 'front end', that is swap the mR for the sMS-200Ultra, and this issue becomes apparent.  The rest, tX-USBultra, MC3+USB, REF10, my mains power and everything else, all remain the same.  I have even tried switching the sMS-200Ultra to battery power, which appears to make little difference to this issue.  It also occurs to me that the sMS-200Ultra should be better than the mR at eliminating noise issues.

 

My theory is that the sMS-200Ultra has done enough to clean up the presentation of virtually everything versus the mR.  This leads to the situation that remaining HF harshness that is simply inherent in the recording becomes disproportionately noticeable.  If I knew a bit more about psychoacoustics I could probably give my brain a good talking to! 

Can you run two streams to your DAC, one for mR and one for sMS-200Ultra ?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, mozes said:

The more revealing a system becomes, the more prominent the HF in bad recordings. Yet at the sametime, in good recordings the highs become more extended, smoother and sweeter. I think that is one of the reasons why Dave has a HF filter that can be switched on or off on the fly. I switch it on with old and poor recordings.

3

Oddly enough, I was thinking of experimenting with Roon's DSP parametric equaliser.  For decent recordings, the DSP can be turned off, hit a troubling recording, DSP on. Better than having a bunch of favorite recordings (favorite music) that I feel  I need to avoid.  Crude, but it might work quite well. 

Windows 11 PC, Roon, HQPlayer, Focus Fidelity convolutions, iFi Zen Stream, Paul Hynes SR4, Mutec REF10, Mutec MC3+USB, Devialet 1000Pro, KEF Blade.  Plus Pro-Ject Signature 12 TT for playing my 'legacy' vinyl collection. Desktop system; RME ADI-2 DAC fs, Meze Empyrean headphones.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, d_elm said:

Can you run two streams to your DAC, one for mR and one for sMS-200Ultra ?

Not easily!  This would require cable swapping, the sMS-200Ultra feeds a tX-USBultra, which only has one USB input.  Next up is the MC3+USB, which again has only one USB input.  So not really practical.  I could run the mR direct to the Devialet, but similar results can be achieved using Devialet's built-in AIR streaming.

Windows 11 PC, Roon, HQPlayer, Focus Fidelity convolutions, iFi Zen Stream, Paul Hynes SR4, Mutec REF10, Mutec MC3+USB, Devialet 1000Pro, KEF Blade.  Plus Pro-Ject Signature 12 TT for playing my 'legacy' vinyl collection. Desktop system; RME ADI-2 DAC fs, Meze Empyrean headphones.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Confused said:

Not easily!  This would require cable swapping, the sMS-200Ultra feeds a tX-USBultra, which only has one USB input.  Next up is the MC3+USB, which again has only one USB input.  So not really practical.  I could run the mR direct to the Devialet, but similar results can be achieved using Devialet's built-in AIR streaming.

I like your idea to use Roon EQ.  I find a lot of old pop requires a bass boost and attention to treble.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...