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

[Johnseye]

1 hour ago, limniscate said:

I ask May if the SMB connectors negatively affect sound quality.  She said she'll have to test after Munich.

 

That she didn't immediately say no, and that they haven't tested this yet is concerning. Convenience at the cost of quality is not worth it in my book when we tweak for the smallest improvements. I'm going to wait then until we know for sure. Thanks for asking. 

[Johnseye]

19 hours ago, limniscate said:

@romaz

Do you need two or three dCBL-CAT7 cables? It seems like you would need three: one from server NIC to iSO-CAT6, one from iSO-CAT6 to switch, and one from switch to sMS-200 Ultra. 

 

 

 

12 hours ago, Johnseye said:

 

\Want it between switch and NAS?  Switch and router?  Switch and server?  WAN and router?  Use the dCBL-CAT7 cables everywhere.  Use the iSO-CAT6 between each device.  Fill your space up with sweet music like the aroma from full blooming flower.

 

Also between server and endpoint with a bridge. Anywhere from the source on. Gets expensive at those prices for what it's worth. 

[Johnseye]

19 minutes ago, romaz said:

 

I agree.  I believe COM Express holds the key and I am in discussion now to build a custom carrier board to my specifications.  That means I have ditched my off-the-shelf motherboard and am building my own custom motherboard which will include an embedded 6w Celeron, SOC architecture, SFP (fiber) instead of RJ-45, 3 PCIe 2.0x1 slots for multiple Adnaco cards, integrated (embedded) compact flash reader (on PCIe) for the OS and no unnecessary ICs or connectors.  It will be purely 12V DC powered.  It remains to be seen whether I can incorporate my preference of capacitors and to have at least some of the more important switching regulators converted to linear regulators but that is being discussed.  Of course, the main clock will be replaced.  Lead time to first prototype will be about 30 days.

 

A new business model?  Let me know when you start taking orders

[Johnseye]

9 hours ago, romaz said:

 

So, my Adnaco S3B has come in and it is indeed very good and the combination of Adnaco + tX-USBUltra is just heavenly.  I see great potential with the Adnaco with its clocks replaced.

 

Is the S3B single mode and does it use laser or is it multimode LED?  Any reference to the noise generated by the transmitters?

 

9 hours ago, romaz said:

 

Where SOtM's sound signature is this wonderful detail clarity, it can also sound a bit thin.  If there has been a criticism with their latest Ultra server, this is it and perhaps, this signature is even intentional.  This is why I value AO with its sound signatures and digital filters because it allows me to put a bit of meat on the bones of the SOtM.  I generally value silver over copper DC cabling but I have intentionally gone with copper with my SOtM gear.  

 

This is where I've struggled.  My system is built for clarity from end to end.  When comparing the sMS-200 with mR one of the differences is with that perceived fullness, or softness.  At first I thought it provided some balance, but after an extended trip and not listening to my system for a while I went back and compared the two again.  This perspective led me back to the sMS-200.  The dimensionality and clarity gained is far more appealing to me than any softening, which now sounds like a veil, and is everything I've tried to remove from my signature.

 

[Johnseye]

1 minute ago, ElviaCaprice said:

 

You lost me here, Roy.  You have yet to replace your mobo clocks but you saw a big improvement in SQ with the SOTM products and new clocking.  I thought you were in the mindset that working back from the DAC upstream that the best clock is first next to the DAC and so on. 

I don't know that we can say that better clocking in the mobo is really the panacea that we are hoping for, without the ability to provide clean power throughout the mobo.  Which in my opinion comes first and foremost over any new clocking.

All we know, so far from observation, is that placing a bad clock after a better clock seems to effect SQ negatively.  Same can be said for power supplies.

 

I'm sure Roy will speak for himself but we will both be powering our servers with the SR7 and is the driving need for the 12v.  So good clean power is being provided. 

 

The effort then is to determine benefits from better clocks upstream to the endpoint and to what end. To the NAS or router? The jury is still out but once Roy's server is built we will know more. Although Roy's new server is a bit more than clock upgrades so there's that complexity. 

[Johnseye]

36 minutes ago, ElviaCaprice said:

 

Yes, but you will fail to address still the faults of the regulators on the mobo which create poor power regardless of how clean the original power supply is.  At least so far.

 

I repeat, which you missed.

It could just be that once we can power the server/mobo with quality power throughout the stream that clocking becomes insignificant (to a certain degree) thru the remaining downstream as long as we maintain clean power.  Idea being that there is no need to fix the audio stream which was effected by bad power in the beginning stages of the stream.

 

I will also add as long as those remaining clocks are sufficient enough not to create new jitter/noise.  If I am correct then the streaming chain becomes much more simple and short, server to DAC.

 

Could be.  I don't think we'll know for sure until we replace every clock on every device we control, then pull them out one by one until we hear the difference.  Only then will we know if it benefited one person's sound quality.  Then enough people need to repeat it until a consensus is formed.  Then repeat the process for the regulators or any other variable.

[Johnseye]

5 hours ago, amir57bs said:

I have send an email but no answer!

is this address OK?

 

I've been trying to contact him as well, have received no reply in several days, and I already paid him.  I'm hoping he's either in Munich or just out of communication temporarily.  

[Johnseye]

On 5/12/2017 at 0:47 PM, romaz said:

 

Who said you need a rubidium master clock?  SOtM isn't saying this.  They provide an external 10MHz master clock option for the sake of flexibility for those who desire it.  I certainly am not looking to do this.

 

As for pictures, look on SOtM's website.  I have posted my own pictures here on this thread.

 

Regarding cabling, you can do this yourself if you wish.  You will want to use U.FL connectors.  Cable length should be as short as possible.  Again, look on SOtM's website for details.

 

On 5/12/2017 at 8:30 AM, hurka said:

My older z97 itx mobo usb sound dull and flat.external usb card help ,but new series 270 much much better.

sound galleries don't use any usb cards I think.Linn ,lumin makes only better separately power fed cheap clock.

sotm use special tcxo,ocxo?send picture pls,

master clock input?(1000dollar stuff)rubidium clock required?this is really funny

4 clock output?   the cables need short one ! cant put together with one clock.....

 

 

This video with Ted Smith is an excellent explanation about why a rubidium clock isn't desired.

 

 

[Johnseye]

48 minutes ago, romaz said:

 

Great post, thanks for sharing your experience!  You're the first I know to have replaced every clock that you can replace in your audio path and so the insights that you provide are valuable.

 

What I am aiming to do is to replace every clock I can with clocks of equivalent performance (sCLK-EX) and with each clock powered to an equivalent high standard (SR7).  It remains my theory that when clocks of varying performance and powered to different standards are used, you may not fully realize the true potential of your components.

 

...

 

My ultimate point here is that putting a good clock in a component doesn't guarantee success and that the quality of the component matters more but bad clocks in a good component have the potential to contribute significant permanent harm that cannot be fully repaired downstream and so if the goal is ultimate fidelity, you have to minimize the deleterious effects of bad clocks from beginning to end. 

 

Another great post and explanation.  Thank you for your efforts and hopefully we get to a point where we learn without a doubt that the use of a lesser quality clock than any other, in any point of our digital platform, is unrecoverable through the use buffer, filter, isolation or other mechanism.  Any effort to correct downstream distortion, noise or error can not be fully remediated.  If by replacing every clock on every component involved in the digital platform produces a benefit, and not just a change in sound signature, then there is no diminishing return.  Based on your description of how each device changes the sound signature I question whether it is merely changing the signature, but because each device had a positive impact on the sound that is unlikely.

 

Of course the clock and power are focuses of today's exercise, but as you point out there are also less impactful components which may play a part as well.  One emphasis in this effort is quality.  Manufacturers of mass produced products use lesser quality components to save costs.  We see in Paul Hynes product not only one level of quality offered, but an even higher level with annealed silver components.  The quality makes a difference, but there is an incremental cost.  For those fortunate enough to where cost is not an issue, the sky's the limit.  This is concerning because we could be modifying every device we own that's involved in the digital chain every time a better clock or component is made.  What's more concerning is the limited number of people or companies involved in doing this today.

[Johnseye]

There is an OS update to the sMS-200.  v0.3.8 with a date of 5-15-2017.

Not sure if it resolves my issue with HQP yet, but will post once I know.

[Johnseye]

On 5/16/2017 at 6:09 AM, Elberoth said:

Anyone tried getting rid of the regulator board from the sMS-200 ?

 

I just got this tip from another forum member:

 

If you want to get the most out of your SMS then open up the box remove the external regulator board and inject 5v straight onto the main board. Lord knows how sotm managed to produce such an awful reg board but if you use the sonore battery psu or Paul Hynes reg straight into main board the results are superb.

 

I'm gonna try this on my return from Munich High End show. I have just opened the sMS-200 up and it seems like a very easy mod to perform. 

 

The original regulator board uses a DC/DC converter (probably to accomodate a vide range of input voltages) and those tend to be very noisy. It makes zero sense to pass the power via this regulator, if you can set the LPS-1 to 5V and power the device directly.

 

 

Would you please share how you did this, and the results when complete?  If you experienced an improvement I'd like to do it myself.  Thanks!

 

9 hours ago, limniscate said:

Here's what May had to say about the 12V versions:

 

Normally higher voltages bring better sound, but it is very different from how you set up and your preferred sound taste.

 

 

I'm a little torn as to the standard voltage v. the 12V for the dX and sMS.

 

This shows a conundrum.  We have been going after low powered devices to keep noise at a minimum by powering them with linear PSUs like the LPS-1 and SR7.  LPSUs that can accommodate more power have a higher price tag, almost to the point of being impractical for even the budgetless among us.  However 12v is not out of line and can be handled by a single rail in an SR7.  I wonder if we're targeting devices to be powered by the LPS-1 out of convenience or limited, easily available options.  Do we end up starving some devices of power, limiting their performance, in efforts to use certain devices or to keep power input levels low?

[Johnseye]

On 5/14/2017 at 8:15 PM, Always.Learning said:

Rajiv--

 

It seems you are using a Y cable on the LPS-1 that is powering both the modded switch and the modded sMS-200. Can you tell us where you got the Y cable, how much it cost, and what other options, if any, you considered?

 

Thank you.

 

On 5/14/2017 at 8:23 PM, austinpop said:

 

Sure, happy to.

 

This is the Y-cable: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007Q8IKRE, but I plan to make my own soon using Canare 4S6 as per the DIY cables thread. Just haven't had the time.

 

The other option I considered was to use separate LPS-1s for the switch and the sMS-200. However, upon searching all my cupboards and drawers, I came up one LPS-1 short. Further digging under my sofa cushions for spare change still left me about $393.25 short to buy another LPS-1.

 

 

I was very tempted to go this route as I already have a 2 rail SR7 build in progress.  Adding a third rail would cause a delay and add cost.  So I asked Paul if he would make a splitter lead.  He said he could but, and I quote him here:

 

"I can build a splitter cable using Switchcraft DC 2.1mm plugs and sockets with fine silver wire. If you let me know the lead lengths for the Y cable sections I can work out a cost for you. However, for the best sound quality, I have to say that I would not recommend powering two items of equipment from one power supply as this will create a ground loop through the DC leads and the equipment interconnect. This will allow the ground return current from both items of equipment to mix and it will cause signal inter-modulation that is usually audible especially on a transparent system."

 

Based on that information I won't be pursuing the splitter option.  Maybe another LPS-1 or a third rail.

 

[Johnseye]

21 minutes ago, AmusedToD said:

Just a quick report from Munich. I visited the SOTM stand as I previously agreed with May to buy the tx-USBUltra at the show and she kindly brought the 12V version as per my request (serial number 003). However, after a long discussion with Mr. Lee (the owner and chief engineer of SOTM), I decided to go with the SMS-200Ultra instead of  the sms200 + tx-USBUltra combo. The reason is of purely financial nature. Mr. Lee wasn't sure that sms200 + tx-USBUltra would sound that much better than the sms200Ultra, if at all (perhaps slightly, but not enough to warrant the price difference).

 

The math is simple:

 

sms200 (450USD) + good linear PSU (350USD) + tx-USBUltra (990USD) + good linear PSU (350USD) plus Curious link (120USD) = 2260 USD

 

sms200Ultra (1200USD) + good linear PSU (350USD) = 1550USD

 

So in my book it was rather simple - a saving of cca 700 USD which I invested in SOTM's LAN filter (350USD), and I still have additional 350USD left at my disposal to get a good linear PSU for my router.

 

My guess is that sms200Ultra along with SOTM's LAN filter and a better Ethernet cable will sound better than sms200 + txUSBultra without the LAN cable.

 

The good thing is that the superior clock that can be found in the txUSBultra is also used in the sms200Ultra, and the sms200Ultra can be modified in a way to support up to 2 external devices (for example a switch and a router). So one can send his/her sms200Ultra and his router/switch to SOTM for them to make the mods.

 

The bottom line is - I will be selling my 1 month old sms200, so anyone interested can drop me an email.

 

The befeit of the tx-usb ultra is that it has 4 clocks, 3 of which can be used for other devices.  So not only are you getting the tx, but the sms-200 and a switch can get upgraded clocks.  If you don't care about the switch getting reclocked, and you can make your full $450 back then maybe that's the way to go.  Since you already have an sms-200...I dunno.  Did Mr. Lee explain what else is better about the ultra besides the clocks?

[Johnseye]

1 minute ago, AmusedToD said:

 

The sms200ultra gives you the same benefit of reclocking external devices (2 devices max), as I posted above. Confirmed by SOTM. But you get away with only one expensive linear PSU, and you get a single box solution.

 

So no other differences between the standard and ultra 200 besides the clocks?

Please clarify.  I can use the sms200 ultra has 2 extra clocks and SOtM will modify other devices using it?  Sorry I missed the full impact of that in your previous post.

[Johnseye]

45 minutes ago, guerph said:

We this bloody well just made me question my tx-USBultra order.

 

2 minutes ago, TopQuark said:

 

This is great. I can't wait to hear more and when.  I hope this happens right after Munich.

 

She mentioned this was a consideration when I asked a couple months ago, but I hadn't heard anything since.  This is good news.  Hopefully it's an upgrade path that includes an extra clock or two.

[Johnseye]

36 minutes ago, guerph said:

Can someone help explain the clock situation? I haven't had time to read through the whole thread. Are there redundant clocks built into the tx-USBultra?? Please dumb it down for me if possible

 

The board in the tx, which can also be bought separately, is the sCLK-EX. This has 4 clocks. 1 is used for the tx, leaving 3 for other uses. Cables are run from the tx (sCLK-EX) to other devices. How this works exactly I don't know.

 

I guess it's cheaper for them to use the sCLK-EX with 4 clocks than design a 1 clock board. Or a 2 clock board for the SMS ultra. Maybe there's more to it than just the clock. Maybe there's something to connecting them in a master slave config. Lots of unknowns. 

[Johnseye]

34 minutes ago, pam1975 said:

slightly off-topic, can anyone recommend a good ethernet PCI express card?

Thanks!

 

Intel E1G42ET

[Johnseye]

 

5 hours ago, amir57bs said:

 

Usb cable in my idea is very very important .

overally if you like emotional sound (true tone plus good micro dynamic) i think combination of gordon rankin codes plus purist cable is very good.

i do not like ultra smooth and clean sound of many systems , i prefer emotional sound .

i think ethernet renderer may give you ultra clean ultra smooth ultra low noise sound but i prefer intimate sound of pcie usb card with AS gordon rankin codes.

the best way to get emotional sound is to keep the way minimal.

adding reclockers or ethernet devices like microrendu add complexity of streaming data transfer and it will degrade intimacy of sound.

 

5 hours ago, ElviaCaprice said:

 

If I wanted that kind of sound I'd do it with tubes in a SET amp/preamp.  Not a cable.  Best to use a USB adapter or shortest cable possible.

 

This should clear things up.  Shamelessly copied...

 

Regardless of how good your clock source, the cable you use to connect clocks and digital audio signals can affect the clocking accuracy quite dramatically. Word clock signals are conveyed as a simple square wave running at the sample rate, and are always conveyed using a matched‑impedance interface designed specifically to convey high‑frequency signals. In fact, it's the same basic interface as is used for conveying video signals, with 75Ω terminations at each end and cables with a characteristic impedance of 75Ω. As a result, the signal that falls out at the far end of the clock cable is generally pretty similar to what went in, and although the inherent cable capacitance will tend to round off the vertical edges slightly, every clock transition will be consistent, which is vitally important.

It's also critically important to terminate word clock signals correctly. The word clock input terminal (normally a BNC connector) on some devices is deliberately unterminated (high impedance), while some are permanently terminated and others are switchable. If the line is unterminated, the clock signal will be reflected back down the cable, which could prevent some devices from detecting and locking onto the word clock information. The usual way to apply a termination in these cases (as shown by the diagram, left) is to fit a BNC T‑piece to the word clock input terminal, attach the clock cable to one side and a 75Ω termination plug to the other. Double terminations (where an extra termination is added inadvertently to one already on the line) will result in a low-level signal with the same potential problem.

 

 

S/PDIF, AES3 and ADAT interfaces convey the audio data in a 'channel' coding format that also embeds word and bit clocks (and some other useful information). Basically, the signal switches the frequency of a square‑wave signal between 1.5 and 3MHz (for a 44.1kHz sampled signal). So we're talking pretty high‑frequency stuff here — well into video frequency territory, rather than normal audio. Trying to get this kind of signal down a mic cable is difficult because of the relatively high capacitance, which is why specific very low-capacitance 'digital audio cable' is manufactured and recommended for this application. (Other cable types intended for high‑speed data transfer can also work well, particularly Cat5 Ethernet cable).

 

The result of sending data down a cable intended for digital data transfer.shows the result of sending an AES3

 

The first signal through 2m of Canford Audio's DFT digital audio cable. What this graph is showing is a series of sections of digital audio data, all overlaid over one another. The top, horizontal blue line represents the high data value (binary 1), and the lower blue line represents the low data value (binary 0). Individual data bits obviously exist only at one of these two levels, and the divisions between one data bit and the next are represented by the vertical blue lines.

As you can see, with this digital audio cable the source signal is being received still looking very square and clean, and each individual 'bit cell' (also referred to as the 'eye' pattern) is clearly identifiable and very 'open.' The small red rectangles within each bit cell represents the minimum eye pattern area that must be kept clear for the receiver to be able to interpret the data reliably — in effect, this is the 'decision zone', where the receiver has to decide whether the data is high or low for that specific data bit.

 

Similar results when using standard mic cable of the same length.

 

The second graph shows exactly the same thing, but this time with the signal passing through 2m of standard professional star‑quad microphone cable. The rising and falling edges between each bit cell have obviously been slowed down dramatically, and follow a ragged curve rather than the crisp up or down switching seen in the DFT cable. This is due entirely to the capacitance of the cable storing, and then releasing over time, the electrical energy from each change of signal voltage. While the damage is very obvious, it's still not disastrous and the data can still be received reliably — but you can certainly see how the eye pattern is starting to 'close up'. Now imagine what would happen if you tried to send a signal down many tens of metres of mic cable! In practice, it would become unrecoverable after about 15 to 25m.

The critical aspect of this waveform damage is that the rising and falling edges of each bit cell are used to define the bit‑clock transitions, and the distortions caused by cable capacitance can therefore introduce clock jitter. The diagram above shows how the data is conveyed in the S/PDIF and AES3 interface formats. The audio data ones are conveyed by switching the signal between high and low (or vice versa) mid‑way through the bit period (ie. sending the 3MHz square wave), while audio data zeros are conveyed by remaining at a constant level for the entire bit period (sending the 1.5MHz square wave). This arrangement is actually very similar to the way standard linear timecode works — although that system operates by switching between 1kHz and 2kHz signals, giving rise to the characteristic warble. This kind of channel code arrangement (often called a Bi‑Phase Mark Code) has the advantage that the recovered data is not affected by the overall signal polarity — all that matters is whether the signal transitions midway through a bit cell period or not, rather than whether it is a high or low voltage at any particularly time. However, as the diagram shows, the amount of clock jitter is directly affected by the audio data content to some degree, because of the different cable‑capacitance charging and discharging times that occur.

 

With S/PDIF and AES formats, clock jitter is directly affected by the audio data content to some degree, because of the different cable‑capacitance charging and discharging times that occur.

 

Ideally, the receiving circuitry will be able to remove this interface jitter, but not all devices manage this equally well (as shown in the investigations into A‑D converter clock‑recovery above), and if the embedded clocks are to be used as a clock reference (as is common practice in D‑A converters, for example), then this interface jitter can become part of the overall system's clock jitter, potentially resulting in reduced D‑A (or A‑D) performance.

[Johnseye]

9 hours ago, romaz said:

sCLK-EX essentially uses an internal master clock by which the 4 clocks derive their timing and so all 4 clocks are synchronized.  He believes strongly that this clock can be improved upon by a good external 10MHz master clock such as one from Esoteric or dCS.  SOtM plans to build their own external master clock in the near future.  As previously mentioned, an external clock means more wires and the need for another good PSU.

 

Looking forward to hearing more on this topic.  I've read some different information on external master clocks from no improvement to degradation.

 

9 hours ago, romaz said:

 

In Lee's opinion, the sMS-200Ultra will sound best at 12V.  I would presume this applies to the tX also.  This has nothing to do with these devices being "understarved" at lower voltages as has been suggested.  These devices consume the same power regardless of voltage.  That means whether they use 6V or 12V, the number of watts consumed is the same.  The benefit of higher voltage is less current draw.  As stated many times on this thread, the less current a component draws, generally it means less noise in the ground plane.  If a component consumes 12 watts, at 12V, that equates to 1A of draw, whereas at 6V, that equates to 2A of draw.  The downside of higher voltage can be greater heat generation and so a manufacturer has to balance these traits.

 

It was a question, not suggestion.  I honestly don't know.  My question was: "Do we end up starving some devices of power, limiting their performance, in efforts to use certain devices or to keep power input levels low?"

 

As you point out, decreasing the voltage increases the current.  If higher current means less draw, and less noise then why are people suggesting undervolting these devices?  This is another question.  I honestly don't know and am looking for an answer.  In the long run undervolting could damage the device at the expense of saving power.

 

Others just pointed out there must be a converter on board.  Can you confirm with Lee?

 

 

9 hours ago, romaz said:

 

An sMS-200ultra will sound slightly better than a standard sMS-200 that has been modified to become an sMS-200ultra purely because longer clock cables have to be used.  No other reason and the difference shouldn't be great.  No word yet on the rebate to upgrade from standard to Ultra but it is essentially a trade in is my understanding.

 

SOtM doesn't yet know the sonic impact of the SMB connectors but they feel this is a better way to go.  This also means that you can now get beyond a 40cm clock cable and extend up to 1M but the longer this length, the greater the deterioration in SQ.

 

Definitely more convenient and allows for flexibility with other devices without having to ship it all back for modification.  A mobo or switch with multiple SMB interfaces could allow for different clocks to be used in the future as this technology, or our knowledge of it, advances.  But as with all interfaces vs. directly soldered on board, or even soldered wires, there is a high probability of issues; noise, distortion, etc.

 

It sounds like they just used the tx chassis with the sMS-200 board and made soldered wire connections to the sCLK-EX board.  Is this your understanding as well?  Do you know why they haven't just used the same clocks from the sCLK-EX directly on the sMS-200 board?  I can guess, but hoping you heard something direct.

 

9 hours ago, romaz said:

 

If 2 components have identical clock requirements (ie frequency and current draw) such as with 2 NIC cards or 2 switches, then one clock from the sCLK-EX can be used to clock both components with no detriment to SQ.  This means potentially, a single sCLK-EX can clock more than 4 items.

 

Do you or SOtM know the limit?

 

9 hours ago, romaz said:

 

Lee feels strongly that optical is a bad idea.  Lots of jitter.  I thought this applied mainly to things like an Intona and not as much with optical but according to Lee, he has been looking at this for the past 5 years and can't get around the fact that even optical results in considerable jitter leading to a more "closed" sound which is why he has intentionally avoided this type of GI and so his advice is to stick with passive isolation.  I have to agree that when I tested the Adnaco, as I previously posted, it did nothing to open up the soundstage, and while replacing 2 clocks in the transceiver could make up for the high jitter produced, the optical connection will potentially undo all the good done by any previous clocking efforts meaning that my efforts to reclock my motherboard, NIC card, router, etc, will be seriously impacted.  As such, I have decided to use my Adnaco as a hub for music storage where it made a remarkable difference.  I will still plan to change the clock in the PCIe card to address jitter caused to the music stream as it passes through optical but I will no longer plan to change the two clocks in the outboard USB transceiver since the impact of those two clocks will essentially be compromised as the signal goes through the optical.  This means I will also be abandoning my fiber NIC and FMCs since this would negate the benefits of changing the 2 clocks in my router.  Huge change of plans.  Ugghh.

 

I asked both May and Lee which would sound better:  SOtM USB card with sCLK-EX + tX-USBultra vs sMS-200 modded to Ultra status + tX-USBultra?  Neither are sure as they haven't done this testing.  My guess is an sMS-200ultra + tX-USBultra would have the greater potential with the X-factors being the "direct connection" path, the switch that you can throw in for very little money plus that fact that you have the option of using a pair of dCBL-CAT7s.

 

 

I suspect Lee has used a jitter meter to determine this.  I feel for you Roy as you've gone through a lot of effort and expense only to talk with Lee, turning things upside down.  This is an excellent example of where we make our presumptions through personal listening exercises.  As many here have hypothesized, running the packets through fiber will filter the upstream power and noise.  However there are different quality emitters, and a difference between LED and laser.  There are also different types of detectors which will introduce distortion and noise, all effecting the S/N ratio.  With fiber you're converting the packets to light and back to electrical again, and it seems Lee has a good understanding of the price paid for that conversion in jitter.

[Johnseye]

7 hours ago, romaz said:

 

If power consumption is the same, then higher voltage means less current draw.  This is based on P = V x I.  If the power draw of a component is known to be 12 watts, an input voltage of 1V means that component will draw 12A which is not good with respect to audio.  An input voltage of 12V would mean that component would only draw 1A which would be more ideal.  If a wide range voltage regulator has an input voltage of 6-12V, as an example, it is generally believed that feeding it 12V (because it would draw less current) would sound better than feeding it 6V but that doesn't mean you are undervolting the device.  You would be undervolting the device if you decide to feed it 5V because that begins to go beyond the capability of the regulator.

 

Looks like the missing piece was it having a wide range regulator, able to handle 6-12v.  All makes sense then.

 

7 hours ago, romaz said:

It would be more correct to say that the chassis that the tX uses was intended as the chassis for all their Ultra devices.  The sCLK-EX then connects to whatever component it is intended to connect with using U.FL connectors and so they are not soldered.  I don't know what you mean when you say that they "haven't just used the same clocks from the sCLK-EX directly on the sMS-200 board?"  What they are doing with the sMS-200ultra is no different than what they are doing with the tX-USBultra.

 

To clarify, why don't they just replace the clocks used in the standard sMS-200 with those used on the sCLK-EX?  Why the need to add an sCLK-EX with every device to make it an ultra?  Build the required components directly onto the board of the devices instead of using U.FL connectors to the sCLK-EX.  The only benefit I can see of using the sCLK-EX itself is to chain them together in a master slave scenario.  If someone ends up buying the tx ultra and the sMS-200 ultra, then what they have is 2 sCLK-EX boards with a lot of clocks going unused, especially when one sCLK-EX could be used for both, the only difference being longer cables used for connectivity and possibly a different interface with the SMB.

 

You said earlier that each of the 4 clocks on the sCLK-EX could be used for even more than one device each.  We still don't know how many devices per clock could be mastered.  A lot of unknowns about these devices, a lot of potential in them and some of that is getting realized now with direct questions to Lee.

 

7 hours ago, romaz said:

 

Yes, Lee likes to measure things and I have been impressed by his penchant for measuring things.

 

I have no problems with changing course if I believe it is for the better.  I think we are all on the same journey to improve our systems and sometimes this means pushing the reset button but that doesn't mean what is best for me is best for all.

 

I believe in measuring things too.  Saves a lot of time, money and effort.  It's fun buying stuff and experimenting but when you look back and a single conversation changes the direction with a jitter meter you realize how easy it is to chase a dragon.  Trust the engineers with their tools.

 

A couple others have said that even though they know fiber can introduce jitter, they still like the sound from their system better with the fiber.  Since the major things we are addressing are jitter and power related noise or distortion, I'm guessing those people have a bigger problem with the upstream noise and distortion than they do with jitter.  So it becomes the lesser of two evils.  In the end if it sounds better to you it doesn't matter what the meter says.  But if you end up fixing your power issue, go back and see if it sounds better without the fiber.

[Johnseye]

2 hours ago, AmusedToD said:

 

Interesting. I am thinking about going the ROCK route with an Intel NUC. So if you connect the NUC directly through its LAN port with an appropriate streamer (sms200 or microrendu), how do you provide internet access for the NUC? Through a LAN-USB adapter or through wifi?

 

Do you think Roon OS would sound better than Windows 10?

 

 

Check the Roon forums on ROCK. Last I read ROCK did not sound better than an AO optimized Windows server. This may have changed with more recent releases, but there were still issues with the ROCK OS. 

 

What kills ROCK for me is I can't simultaneously run Roon Core and JRiver MC like I can on Windows.  I use JRiver and it's remote app to stream music from my server to my phone, which allows me to stream via Bluetooth in my car or any other Bluetooth enabled device. Even my PC at work.  Roon can not port forward, so no streaming out my LAN.  If they ever allow this, goodbye JRiver.  Although I will also say, updating metadata is infinitely easier in JRiver. 

[Johnseye]

1 hour ago, rickca said:

 

Does SOtM claim there is a benefit from clocking multiple components from the same sCLK-EX board compared to the same components with independent sCLK-EX boards?  

 

That would mean an sMS-200 with a 2 transplanted clock points from a tX-USBultra would outperform independent sMS-200ultra and tx-USBultra.

 

Maybe you didn't have this in mind when you said 'same master clocking board'.  If you are instead referring to SOtM 10MHz external master clock synchronization, nobody has heard that yet.

 

 

 

Yes, this is a very good point.  From my understanding, traditional master clocks can degrade quality for small runs such as what we have at home.  This information, from sound recording engineers not made up by me, could be dated or based on other factors.  If a master clock does in fact provide an improvement in quality that exceeds the benefit of only placing a superior clock as the last before the DAC, then there would be benefit in using a true master at the beginning of the chain, all the way through to the end.  It could also be that using a master slave at any point within the chain in addition to the superior clock as the last before the DAC provides the best possible quality.

 

Lots of ad hoc testing and we'd all really benefit from someone like Lee at SOtM to provide us with this info.  Since people are doing this on their own at home, actual measurement tools like a jitter meter would benefit in addition to the "it sounds better" statement.  We are all trusting of those opinions who are doing the home tests and it's to our benefit because something is better than nothing at this point.  However I am loathe to invest thousands when I hear information from Lee stating he sees high jitter in a configuration and we either didn't hear it or don't know what to listen for.

[Johnseye]

1 minute ago, Bamber said:

May quoted me an extra £30 in the UK to have a SMS-200 Ultra built without the first regulator.

 

They should have quoted you less since they save cost on material and labor.

[Johnseye]

Here's some very good, simple info on master clocking.  It's from a recording studio perspective so keep in mind the AD references, but the same principles apply.  The only caveat I can think of is that with the increasing number of devices we are utilizing in these chains, that drift occurs and can't be recovered.  This should be an indicator to simplify, not add more devices.

 

http://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/does-your-studio-need-digital-master-clock

 

And to summarize key points.

 

"The issue here is that it is much easier to design a good clock circuit using a fixed crystal inside the unit than it is to design a circuit which accepts an external clock signal and synchronises to it well. External clocks are likely to acquire some element of jitter (largely because of the inherent effects of clock cabling), and the common slave‑locking circuits can introduce further timing variations of their own, both of which can be quite hard (and expensive) to remove. As a result, an A‑D will often perform less well when synchronised to an external clock than when it is running on its own internal crystal. The noise floor may rise, and there may be more low‑level distortion products and artifacts. That being the case, it makes sense to use a device which can handle external clocks well as the slave, and a device which works poorly on external clocks as the master. In that way, the maximum audio quality can be achieved for all devices."

 

I already posted the information on interface jitter from this article in a previous post, but here's some critical information to consider when the SOtM uses 75ohm BNC interfaces for the clock chain.  I would expect Lee to ensure this does not occur with their interfaces.

 

"It's also critically important to terminate word clock signals correctly. The word clock input terminal (normally a BNC connector) on some devices is deliberately unterminated (high impedance), while some are permanently terminated and others are switchable. If the line is unterminated, the clock signal will be reflected back down the cable, which could prevent some devices from detecting and locking onto the word clock information. The usual way to apply a termination in these cases (as shown by the diagram, left) is to fit a BNC T‑piece to the word clock input terminal, attach the clock cable to one side and a 75Ω termination plug to the other. Double terminations (where an extra termination is added inadvertently to one already on the line) will result in a low-level signal with the same potential problem."

Conclusions

Overall, it should be clear from these tests that employing an external master clock cannot and will not improve the sound quality of a digital audio system. It might change it, and subjectively that change might be preferred, but it won't change things for the better in any technical sense. A‑D conversion performance will not improve: the best that can be hoped for is that the A‑D conversion won't become significantly degraded. In most cases, the technical performance will actually become worse, albeit only marginally so.

Having said all this, the use of a master clock may well make a digital audio system much more convenient and stable to operate — and that may well be a very desirable benefit in its own right, easily outweighing any minor performance compromises of slaved A‑D converters. Or it may ensure the required synchronism between sample rates and video frames is achieved, which is absolutely vital in any video‑related work.

The obvious conclusion is that in simple digital audio setups a master clock is usually unnecessary, although it remains critical that multiple digital devices are clocked sensibly. In more elaborate digital audio systems, a master clock can make the task of slaving multiple units much easier and neater, and allow the system to operate more reliably. In systems where digital audio is being used in synchronism with video, an appropriate master clock is absolutely essential. But in any of these cases, the use of a master clock will not improve the audio quality achieved by the converters in any technical sense — and the most expensive clocks fare no better in this regard than the least expensive. The only relevant criteria for purchase is whether the clock provides the facilities, inputs and outputs required, and is designed sufficiently well to conform with AES11 Grade 1 standard.  

[Johnseye]

6 hours ago, limniscate said:

Obviously, I didn't like reading @Johnseye's post about master clocks since I just ordered the external master clock option for both the dX and the sMS.

 

You get to decide for yourself and you can run it with or without.  It will be interesting to know what you hear.  If you have the ability to blind our double blind test that would help eliminate any bias. It's easy to do if you have someone you trust with your gear to help.