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

[ElviaCaprice]

1 hour ago, austinpop said:

 

Yeah - try it first. Very few people I know want to sell their SR-7 after they hear it. But if you do, I might be interested too.

Your right.  I've been out kicking tires on DAVE's and Hugo 2's, to see what's available.  The more I kick, the more I realize it ain't going to happen.   Can't win, DAVE is over featured/priced for what I need, Hugo 2 has them da* batteries.  I don't care what Rob says about batteries being the benchmark in power supplies, I don't like how they sound.  Must mean I like those noise makers.  Anyways, I love the Chord concept and design up until the power supply.  Chord, please design us a mid level DAC/pre/amp without battery power supply.  

So I shall remain with 2Qute, thus SR7.

[Johnseye]

58 minutes ago, mozes said:

For the DC cables, I am using 16AWG UPOCC silver 50cm that Steven at Audiosensibility built for me. 

Yes the sPS-500 benefits

from a better power cord and I can comfirm that. Against the LPS-1.2, it is a case by case. For example, on my wireless bridge, I preferred the sPS-500 to the LPS-1.2. Bigger sound stage and more natural flow of music. As for the stock charger, I didn’t like it, I am using an eBay low noise LPS. 

 

All is not lost for me then.  Did you use any EMI/RF shielding inside the sMS?  I think I remember reading you're a fan of ferrite so assume you're using that on the cables.

[mozes]

7 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

 

All is not lost for me then.  Did you use any EMI/RF shielding inside the sMS?  I think I remember reading you're a fan of ferrite so assume you're using that on the cables.

The sMS is a demo unit so I am not using any EMI/RF tweaks on it, but I do use ferrites on the LAN cable that is plugged to the sMS, same case with my sCLK server.

[Bricki]

39 minutes ago, mozes said:

For the DC cables, I am using 16AWG UPOCC silver 50cm that Steven at Audiosensibility built for me. 

Yes the sPS-500 benefits

from a better power cord and I can comfirm that. Against the LPS-1.2, it is a case by case. For example, on my wireless bridge, I preferred the sPS-500 to the LPS-1.2. Bigger sound stage and more natural flow of music. As for the stock charger, I didn’t like it, I am using an eBay low noise LPS. 

Ah yes I remember you posted about those dc cables before. It looks like something I can aspire to, I assume they would be a decent upgrade from my canare 4s6 cables. It's very interesting that you prefer the sps-500 on your wireless bridge. I wonder what it is that causes one psu to be better on one component but not another. Perhaps because the -dc output is grounded on the sps-500 it might be draining some leakage current in that particular situation that the lps1.2 is not... I am rarely right about things though, so I am probably wrong here also ?

[Johnseye]

29 minutes ago, mozes said:

The sMS is a demo unit so I am not using any EMI/RF tweaks on it, but I do use ferrites on the LAN cable that is plugged to the sMS, same case with my sCLK server.

 

Any sticky paper shielding in your SPS? 

I did this with the SR7 and LPS. Can't say I know if it helps with those because I did it at the same time as the other components. It has helped a lot overall. 

[Bricki]

1 hour ago, ElviaCaprice said:

Your right.  I've been out kicking tires on DAVE's and Hugo 2's, to see what's available.  The more I kick, the more I realize it ain't going to happen.   Can't win, DAVE is over featured/priced for what I need, Hugo 2 has them da* batteries.  I don't care what Rob says about batteries being the benchmark in power supplies, I don't like how they sound.  Must mean I like those noise makers.  Anyways, I love the Chord concept and design up until the power supply.  Chord, please design us a mid level DAC/pre/amp without battery power supply.  

So I shall remain with 2Qute, thus SR7.

What feature does the Hugo2 have that the quetest doesn't have? Is it the volume control for direct driving your speakers? Because I assume you have already considered the quetest powered by the lps1.2 

 

BTW... I found that I got a small but still audible improvement from charging my chord mojo through a usb port on my sonicTransporter i5 that is in turn powered by my sps-500... I have tried lots of different ways of having the mojo plugged in while playing and this was the first time I actually heard any difference to where I had it plugged in ? 

[ElviaCaprice]

52 minutes ago, Bricki said:

What feature does the Hugo2 have that the quetest doesn't have? Is it the volume control for direct driving your speakers? Because I assume you have already considered the quetest powered by the lps1.2 

Yes, let's just assume that any external amp, preamp is going to effect SQ resolution negatively.  Thus how can I drive my high efficient speakers directly with the most resolution available from my Chord DAC directly. 

 

Hugo 2 pros:

beefier amp

digital preamp with remote

USB input (although micro but now available in USPCB) on the opposite side of the DAC from the RCA outputs for smooth desktop flow

            cons:

Lipo Battery power supply, I've never liked it's influence on sound signature, slower thinner.

 

Qutest pros:

not powered via batteries, can power with a quality power supply

full USB input (not as big of a deal now that there is a micro USPCB)

              cons:

no preamp, no remote (have to control volume with JRiver 64bit)

can't control native DSD volume, other than roughly thru the new 3 voltage outputs 

volume output/amp is just enough for near field listening, could really use Hugo 2 amp here, better DAVE.  In fact, it's better resolution over 2Qute may really gleam any distortion being output near max voltage output.

 

DAVE pros:

more than sufficient amp

digital preamp with remote

Not powered via batteries

Overall SQ quality about 40 percent better resolution than Hugo 2 DAC (as observed by others)

 

               cons:

Price, your paying not only for the best in SQ,  but extra features you don't need in unbalanced desktop application.

 

Bottom line:  We need a mid tier Chord desktop DAC with Hugo 2 features but powered thru a quality power supply (preferable externally), no batteries.  If this was available I would be all over it.   New TT model?  New Amp/DAC model?

 

Notice I didn't mention galvanic isolation.  I think with our attention to server/streamers power and clocking,  we don't need this feature anymore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[auricgoldfinger]

Anyone who is considering buying a sCLK-OCX10, please see my comments on the dCBL-BNC cable before making a purchase decision.

 

 

[auricgoldfinger]

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

 

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

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, auricgoldfinger said:

I decided to swap out the silver DC cable powering my sMS-200ultra for a copper cable, and I have now toned down the HF glare considerably.

 

I believe you, but try reporting that in a non OP moderated forum thread.

[auricgoldfinger]

10 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

I believe you, but try reporting that in a non OP moderated forum thread.

 

[austinpop]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

I believe you, but try reporting that in a non OP moderated forum thread.

 

Not sure what this means, but I’ll take it as a compliment!

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, austinpop said:

 

Not sure what this means, but I’ll take it as a compliment!

 

" I believe you" should have made this clear.

 This thread has remained well on track.

[str-1]

9 hours ago, auricgoldfinger said:

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

 

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

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

 

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

[seeteeyou]

10 hours ago, auricgoldfinger said:

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

 

As usual clocks are super sensitive to the source of power, any kinda changes in PSU / cables etc. should bring us noticeably different results.

 

16 hours ago, auricgoldfinger said:

I finally received my sCLK-OCX10 yesterday along with a pair of dCBL-BNC cables.  I bought the cables based on my positive experience with the dCBL-CAT7 and dCBL-UF silver USB cables.

 

There we go then, SOtM still didn't learn their lessons after all these years.

 

The length of an Ethernet cable should be no biggie. Pretty much the same deal with USB cables unless we're going beyond 5 meters.

 

Now it's a very different story for both I2S cables and clock cables. The length is mission critical and who knows why SOtM would sell dCBL-BNC with 1.0m as the minimum?

 

@romaz was getting great results with 0.5m Habst so that's half of what we're getting from SOtM. Not to mention how they also happened to mess things up like this before

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/30376-a-novel-way-to-massively-improve-the-sq-of-computer-audio-streaming/?page=147&tab=comments#comment-722848

On 9/25/2017 at 2:55 AM, romaz said:

As a further example of how important this is, I have been testing clock cables of various price points and length.  Using various inexpensive DigiKey clock cables from the same manufacturer of various lengths, as you go from 20 to 40 cm in cable length, the SQ degradation is clearly audible.  This is why I had to send my gear back to SOtM.  Because they didn't have the really short clock cables in stock, they ended up using much longer clock cables in my build which I ultimately deemed as unacceptable.

 

This is getting old but I really had a great laugh myself when I saw this

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/30376-a-novel-way-to-massively-improve-the-sq-of-computer-audio-streaming/?page=300&tab=comments#comment-803814

On 4/7/2018 at 1:24 AM, auricgoldfinger said:

This will be my 3rd unit because SOtM has screwed up my order twice!

 

[str-1]

3 hours ago, str-1 said:

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

 

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

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

[tapatrick]

On 09/04/2018 at 6:24 AM, seeteeyou said:

DirectStream might have an edge if we're feeding its I2S input with a spectacular source. We could also replace its Crystek CVHD-957-22.57920 with something like Pulsar Clock or Neutron Star 2 etc.

Yes, Thats what I'm exploring with I2S into my PS Audio Junior DAC, certainly sounds spectacular with a diy I2S network streamer (Sparky running Dietpi plus Ian Canadas McFifo & McDualXO reclocker and Isolator boards).

[auricgoldfinger]

6 hours ago, seeteeyou said:

Now it's a very different story for both I2S cables and clock cables. The length is mission critical and who knows why SOtM would sell dCBL-BNC with 1.0m as the minimum?

 

 

This is interesting:

Why is 1.5m the ideal length for a RCA/BNC digital cable?

Using a digital cable of at least 1.5m in length dramatically reduces the effect of signal reflection (from the receiver back to the transmitter) in typical audiophile equipment. Reflection contributes significantly to jitter in the digital signal. And of course jitter reduces the fidelity of digital music.

 

In a perfect world where the impedance of the digital source transport (transmitter), transmission line (all wiring, cables, and connectors in between), and the input receiver (DAC) are all identically matched at the S/PDIF standard of 75 ohms, signal reflection is not an issue. But the reality is that this is almost impossible to achieve, particularly in the transmission line.

 

The choice of 1.5m is just a practical guideline since no one wants a cable in their system that is too long.

 

For more technical information on this subject consult the following technical article written by Steve Nugent of Empirical Audio.

 

http://audiosensibility.com/blog/faqs/why-is-1-5m-the-ideal-length-for-a-rcabnc-digital-cable/

[seeteeyou]

4 minutes ago, auricgoldfinger said:

This is interesting:

Why is 1.5m the ideal length for a RCA/BNC digital cable?

 

Geez, they're talking about coaxial cables for S/PDIF but we're dealing with clock cables. Definitely apples to oranges.

[auricgoldfinger]

Just now, seeteeyou said:

 

Geez, they're talking about coaxial cables for S/PDIF but we're dealing with clock cables. Definitely apples to oranges.

 

Sorry, my bad.

[austinpop]

39 minutes ago, seeteeyou said:

 

Geez, they're talking about coaxial cables for S/PDIF but we're dealing with clock cables. Definitely apples to oranges.

 

38 minutes ago, auricgoldfinger said:

 

Sorry, my bad.

 

Well, don't be sorry, as this is an interesting area. On the surface, these two applications (S/PDIF and reference clock) are indeed different. S/PDIF deals with data encoded at up to 192kHz sample rate, while the reference clock we're dealing with is 10MHz.

 

OTOH, the S/PDIF is carrying information modulated as "differential Manchester encoding." The frequency spectrum of this data definitely has a lot of content well above the nominal 192kHz data rate.

 

Similarly, the reference clock, while nominally a 10MHz signal, will have harmonics at multiples of 10MHz, especially for square wave generators.

 

The article you reference is though-provoking, as it talks about impedance mismatches in the transmission line as a practical reality, and I thought his rationale for managing this by controlling the reflection time with cable length was clever. However, it is not clear how the same rationale can be applied to reference clocks.

 

One question I am left with is what governs the choice of sine vs. square wave? On the face of it, the sine wave has the simplest spectrum, so what the the practical benefits of a square wave?

[Jiffi32]

On 07/03/2018 at 10:26 PM, LTG2010 said:

@rickca & kritpoon,

Sure, its a custom design for my server, with two toroids and 9 rails (started of with 5 but you know how it is)

4 x atx rails ( 1x5v 5amp, 1x3.3v 1.5amp, 2x12v 1.5amp)

2 x 5v 1.5 amp (for os ssd & storage hdd)

3 x 9v 1.5amp for SOTM trio ( txUSBexp, sCLK ex & tx USBHubin)

Lead time is based on transformer delivery time. Sean offered 3 types of toroid, off the shelf as used in his DC3 PS, 2 week delivery next grade up, and 6 week delivery based on a specially chosen iron core and using a hand operated machine with very tight tolerences, 6 weeks basically because there is a waiting list/ queue. (same type as used in Zenith SE)

This week or the next is the 6th week so the toroids will be with Sean soon and he's made all the modules. The case was a special order to fit both toroids and big heatsinks for the regulators. There will be one umbilical for the cabling which I will feed into the server case with a gland and connect it up internally. If opting for atx rails you'll need some technical knowledge as Sean can't provide connectors for these rails due to an exclusivety agreement with Innuos, but its not dificult too look up and I'll post what ive done.

Cost is  £2530 I paid a deposit, will pay some more as soon as the transformers and case arrive.

 Will do, as soon as I get it all going.

Hi @LTG2010

Has your power supply arrived yet?

Keen to hear your impressions if it has

[LTG2010]

6 minutes ago, Jiffi32 said:

Hi @LTG2010

Has your power supply arrived yet?

Keen to hear your impressions if it has

Hi, it's due tomorrow, I'll be setting things up over the weekend and will post my impressions. We had a couple of days delay due to bad weather with the case and the transformer manufacturer had flue so we lost around 10 days there. It's all finished now so looking forward to receiving it.

[seeteeyou]

Great explanation about the importance of quality system clocks, especially the part about contamination. However, it's still tricky to understand why that $659 The Linear Solution OCXO switch with $55 Connor-Winfield OH4610LF-025.0M would sound as good as modified D-Link switch powered by the sCLK-EX + Mutec REF 10 + Paul Hynes SR7 combo

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/38968-etherregen-early-general-details-please-dont-ask-too-many-questions-yet/?page=5&tab=comments#comment-806264

5 hours ago, JohnSwenson said:

A commonly held belief is that the phase noise (ie jitter) of these clocks in the DAC are what is important, so designers spend money to get low phase noise oscillators for DACs. The flip side of this is the belief that no other clock any where in the data chain is important, so cheap high phase noise oscillators are used for the USB receiver, Ethernet chip, etc.

 

Recent study is starting to show that this is not the case, the phase noise from other clocks can overlay the noise from the local clock. Thus phase noise form other clocks can contaminate the local clock. Even if this "bleed through" is small, the phase noise from devices such as consumer switches and routers is many orders of magnitude higher than that of really low phase noise oscillators used in better DACs. The result is that you are not getting what you paid for in that DAC. In order for the DAC to sound as good as it should, this clock contamination needs to be dealt with.

 

That's what this switch does, it has a very low phase noise oscillator to clock out the symbols onto the cable and special circuitry that prevents phase noise on the incoming packets from contaminating THAT clock.

 

John S.

 

[ElviaCaprice]

Looks like we were not far off in our theory of point zero being critical, and that the better clocks/power from the server or point of origin plays dividends down the streaming chain line to the DAC.  In fact, if we can get the server sufficiently clean in phase noise, we won't need any fixers on route to the DAC  Hopefully we can do this on the cheap and not get ridiculous, like 10k for a server.  sCLK-EX server was a good start.  Keep it simple.  

 

Darn noise makers!!