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

Knowing how a "femto clock" will benefit a component is not easy to gauge on paper. It seems everyone and their uncle is promoting a femto clock these days. I used to own the Aries with the femto clock and LPS upgrade and to be honest, compared against the base Aries without the clock, the difference was never night and day. I used to own a W4S DAC 2 and having owned it for a few months, I decided to send it back to W4S for their femto clock upgrade. While there was an improvement, it wasn't anything to write home about. During my evaluation of dCS's $13k master clock, I was somehow expecting this incredible improvement given the expense of that clock but found myself disappointed once again.

 

There are obviously many things to consider when looking at a clock upgrade. I am not a clock expert but as I see it, the two parameters most look at are phase noise (which is a measure of a clock's jitter) and stability (both short term and long term) with good short-term stability being much more important in audio. Here is a very helpful comment from John Swenson regarding the pros and cons of an atomic clock (which many consider as the reference standard when it comes to clocking) vs a good OCXO. Note also that he states that it isn't just the clock's characteristics that you have to consider but what your DAC must be capable of to benefit from this clock:

 

"A rubidium standard offers NO advantage over the very good OCXO. The rubidium standard has two systems, a rubidium oscillator, which has high jitter but very good long term stability and an OCXO with very low jitter but not as good long term stability. Some complex circuitry in side there reads both and every so often slowly tweaks the OCXO to match the long term averaged frequency of the rubidium oscillator.

 

Because the OCXO is an adjustable oscillator it actually has slightly higher jitter than the fixed OCXO. Audio could care less about absolute frequency accuracy over tens of years time frame so the rubidium version has higher jitter and costs more, not particularly a good combination for audio use. (unless it is all about bragging rights, but that is something else!)

 

The phase noise specs for those cybershaft OCXOs are actually very good for the price. The big issue with any such external frequency reference is how it gets into the DAC and what happens to it in there.

 

First off, many frequency standards are sine wave output, a lot of DACs that have external inputs want a square wave not a sine wave. Make SURE the reference and the DAC will work together before spending any money.

 

Almost no DAC or audio device uses 10MHz directly. In order to use it the frequency has to be converted. What that conversion does to the phase noise of the input can vary wildly. The absolute best systems out there are at about on par with the phase noise from the premium. So with a premium you would be getting about twice the jitter inside the DAC. With the limited the internal jitter is going to be several times higher than the reference, hence there is not going to be much of an actual difference in the DAC, for a much bigger cost.

 

The above assumes your DAC has a state of the art frequency conversion circuit, these are pretty rare and expensive but COULD exist in one or two audio devices. The problem is that any device with such a conversion circuit probably already has a REALLY good local oscillator, so using one of these OCXOs going through the conversion is not necessarily going to give you lower jitter in the DAC. It may, but it may not.

 

John S."

 

 

I have come to appreciate that devising a good clocking scheme for a DAC is not an easy thing to do, that there are many challenges to to consider and overcome and that throwing a super duper femto clock with excellent characteristics into the mix is hardly ever enough to fix a much more complex problem. This is what Rob Watts, designer of my Chord DAVE had to say about femto clocks:

 

"The issue of clocks is actually very complex, way more of a problem then in simply installing femto clocks. People always want a simple answer to problems even if the problem is multi-dimensional and complex. I will give you a some examples of the complexities of this issue.

 

Some years back a femto clock became available, and I was very excited about using it as it had a third of the cycle to cycle jitter of the crystal oscillators we were using. So I plugged it in, and listened to it. Unexpectedly, it sounded brighter and harder - completely the opposite of all the times I have listened to lower jitter. When you lower jitter levels in the master clock, it sounds smoother and warmer and more natural.

 

So I did some careful measurements, and I could see some problems.

 

The noise floor was OK, the same as before, and all the usual measurements were the same. But you could see more fringing on the fundamental, and this was quite apparent. Now when you do a FFT of say a 1 kHz sine wave, in an ideal world you would see the tone at 1 kHz and each frequency bucket away the output would be the systems noise floor. That is, you get a sharp single line representing the tone. But with a real FFT, you get smearing of the tone, and this is due to the windowing function employed by the FFT and jitter problems within the ADC, so instead of a single line you get a number of lines with the edges tailing of into the noise. This is known as side lobes or fringing. Now one normally calibrates the FFT and the instrument so you know what the ideal should be. Now with a DAC that has low frequency jitter, you get more fringing. Now I have spent many years on jitter and eliminating the effects of it on sound quality, and I know that fringing is highly audible, as I have done many listening tests on it. What is curious, is that it sounds exactly like noise floor modulation - so reduce fringing is the same as reducing noise floor modulation - they both subjectively sound smoother and darker with less edge and hardness.

 

So a clock that had lower cycle to cycle jitter actually had much worse low frequency jitter, and it was the low frequency jitter that was causing the problem and this had serious sound quality consequences. So a simple headline statement of low jitter is meaningless. But actually the problem is very much more complex than this.

 

What is poorly understood is that DAC architectures can tolerate vastly different levels of master clock jitter, and this is way more important than the headline oscillator jitter number. I will give you a few examples:

 

1. DAC structure makes a big difference. I had a silicon chip design I was working on some years back. When you determine the jitter sensitivity you can specify this - so I get a number of incoming jitter, and a number for the OP THD and noise that is needed. So initially we were working with 4pS jitter, and 120dB THD and noise. No problem, the architecture met this requirement as you can create models to run simulations to show what the jitter will do - and you can run the model so only jitter is changed, nothing else. But then the requirements got changed to 15 pS jitter. Again, no problem, I simply redesigned the DAC and then achieved these numbers. So its easy to change the sensitivity by a factor of 4 just by design of the DAC itself - something that audio designers using chips can't do.

 

2. DAC type has a profound effect on performance. The most sensitive is regular DSD or PDM, where jitter is modulation dependent, and you get pattern noise from the noise shaper degrading the output noise, plus distortion from jitter. R2R DAC's are very sensitive as they create noise floor modulation from jitter proportionate to the rate of change of signal (plus other problems due to the slow speed of switching elements). I was very concerned about these issues, and its one reason I invented pulse array, as the benefit of pulse array is that the error from jitter is only a fixed noise (using random jitter source with no low frequency problems). Now a fixed noise is subjectively unimportant - it does not interfere with the brains ability to decode music. Its when errors are signal dependent that the problems of perception start, and with pulse array I only get a fixed noise - and I know this for a fact due to simulation and measurements.

 

3. The DAC degrades clock jitter. What is not appreciated is that master clock jitter is only the start of the problem. When a clock goes through logic elements, (buffers level shifters, clock trees gates and flip-flops plus problem of induced noise) every stage adds more jitter. As a rough rule of thumb a logic element adds 1 pS of more jitter. So a clock input of 1pS will degrade through the device to be effectively 4 pS once it has gone through these elements (this was the number from a device I worked on some years ago). So its the actual jitter on the DAC active elements that is important not the clock starting jitter.

 

The benefit I have with Pulse Array is that the jitter has no sound quality degrading consequences - unlike all other architectures - as it creates no distortion or noise floor modulation. Because the clock is very close to the active elements (only one logic level away), the jitter degradation is minimal and there are no skirting issues at all. This has been confirmed with simulation and measurement - its a fixed noise, and by eliminating the clock jitter (I have a special way of doing this) noise only improves by a negligible 0.5 dB (127 dB to 127.5 dB).

 

This is true of all pulse array DAC's even the simpler 4e ones. In short the jitter problem was solved many years ago, but I don't bleat on about it as its not an issue and because it's way too complex a subject to easily discuss.

 

Pulse Array is a constant switching scheme - that is it always switches at exactly the same rate irrespective of the data, unlike DSD, R2R, or current source DAC's. This means that errors due to switching activity and jitter are not signal dependent, and so is innately immune from jitter creating distortion and noise floor modulation and any other signal related errors. The only other DAC that is constant switching activity is switched capacitor topology, but this has gain proportionate to absolute clock frequency - so it still has clock problems.

 

I plan to publish more detailed analysis of this, but from memory all of my DAC's have a negligible 0.5dB degradation due to master clock jitter, so its a non issue.

 

And yes you are correct, the absolute frequency is quite unimportant, so forget oven clocks, atomic clocks etc. Also the clock must be physically close to the active elements,with dedicated stripline PCB routing with proper termination. Running the clock externally is a crazy thing to do, as you are simply adding more jitter and noise and an extra PLL in the system."

 

So, to answer your question, you can go around asking about the phase noise and stability measurements of various clocks and they will serve as a useful starting point of reference for comparison but will they guarantee that they will sound good? Based on the above comments by John and Rob, I think you know the answer to this already as there is so much more to consider. What I will say is that where all my other "clock upgrade" experiences from the Aries to the dCS Master clock have been underwhelming, this quad clock board by SOtM has been anything but and it has expanded my horizons of just what a good clock can accomplish when implemented properly.

 

Thanks. That is very educational. So in your opinion, there are no metrics that can tell you how good or bad a clock upgrade will sound?

Link to comment
Agreed that so much of a listening experience is system dependent but of course, personal preference also comes into play.

 

Should you decide to try SOtM's new clock for your sMS-200, you may wish to also try their upcoming tX-USB Ultra after your Intona as SOtM's clock will likely surpass the performance of the Crystek clock in the Recovery. My time with the Recovery even when powered by the LPS-1 never lead to this level of step change.

 

What I was hoping is that the Ultra would enable direct attach to the DAC without need of an Intona or tx-USBUltra.

Link to comment
What I was hoping is that the Ultra would enable direct attach to the DAC without need of an Intona or tx-USBUltra.

Neither the sMS-200 Ultra nor the tX-USB Ultra will provide galvanic isolation. If this is something you need, you will probably still require the Intona. Should you use the Intona, you will get the GI you seek but the Intona will degrade your SI in other ways which is why you would then add the tX-USB Ultra after it. This is the type of complexity I find myself running away from when possible but sometimes the benefits are hard to ignore.

Link to comment
@romaz -

 

I've been thinking about these new experiments of yours. We as a community are fortunate to have someone with your curiosity, financial means, highly resolving audio equipment, and most of all, your ears going down this path. Thanks for doing this.

 

It's also important to place this in the context of the taxonomy that @JohnSwenson and others have postulated about system optimization. For example, here is just one of John's posts: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/overall-isolation-network-universal-serial-bus-industry-standard-cables-connectors-and-communications-protocols-between-computers-and-electronic-devices-and-power-29916/index12.html#post597250

 

He talks about timing, signal integrity, and leakage loops.

 

So far, while leakage loops have been explored in both the Ethernet and USB domain, the focus of timing and signal integrity has been primarily on the USB side.

 

Your experiments with applying a high-precision clock on the network switch is the idea that timing and signal integrity matter very much on the Ethernet side too. To be honest, this one seems hard to reconcile with the fact that network propagation is inherently buffered and error-correcting, so should be insensitive to these things.

 

But as always, the empirical results precede the science that explains them.

 

I for one will be watching your clocking experiments with great interest. In your case, you are starting with a DAC with outstanding clocks. So far, you've cleaned up the clocks on 3 of the upstream components from the DAC, by my count: the Trendnet switch, the sMS-200, and the dX-USB-HD, and you noticed an incremental improvement with each step.

 

I admire your intent to clean up "all noisy clocks!" The key finding will be - how far upstream does this cease to matter?

 

<Tongue firmly in cheek> - Maybe you'll find yourself shipping precision clocks to your ISP to deploy at their headend directly upstream of your house. Just kidding!

I appreciate what you are saying. I had previously read John's post that you have referenced and I respect it as I respect all of his posts because he is clearly a person of wisdom and much smarter about these things than I am. At the same time, there are things going on with network transmission that are not fully understood, not even by John, because otherwise, I think he would have designed the mR to directly connect to the music server instead of to a router had he known. To be fair, this doesn't just apply to John, it applies to the design team at SOtM also.

 

By now, I think you've figured out I like to try new things and when I hear a change for the better, I push until I hear no further change. It only makes sense and I find just as much value in negative findings as I do positive findings. In all of my hobbies, I always strive to know where the ceiling is. With analog, it's much easier to grasp where that ceiling is but with digital, I am continually amazed by new discoveries.

Link to comment

On Friday night I finally got to the point where I decided to throw in the towel on the direct connection. While I heard all the positive benefits others have reported here, I also heard a nasty coloration of sorts overlaying the music at times. Music that already had a tendency to sound hard had become somewhat painful to listen to. Not a good thing, obviously.

 

My direct connection computer was a 2008 Mac Pro with 4 internal SATA drives, a TV tuner card, and I think, at least 5 internal fans spinning all the time. Not the ideal machine for audio so I figured it might the culprit. I acquired for myself a new (used) Mac Mini plus an Uptone JS-2. The JS-2 arrived last week and today I received my Mac Mini back from Uptone with MMK kindly installed by Alex.

 

As soon as I got home from work I moved Roon over to the Mac Mini, which is running MacOS off an SD card. I also configured a bridge to create the direct connection. The JS-2 was set to power the Mac Mini from one rail and my Paul Pang switch from the other rail.

 

The supercharged Mac Mini delivered a significant upgrade over what I had been hearing from the Mac Pro. I consider the improvement to probably be on par with what one might get from a DAC upgrade.

 

I played "In the Mystic" from Moondance and I think must have gasped initially as the clarity was such that it sounded like I was in the recording studio. There was what seemed like a complete absence of equipment getting in the way of the music.

 

Clarity and focus - just astonishing. Dynamics - both macro and micro - just insane. Bass - bigger, badder, bolder.

 

That 2008 Mac Pro had clearly been holding back my system's performance. But also it seems that the JS-2 is very well deserving of the many positive things said and written about it.

 

As far as that coloration that had been getting on my nerves - I've been having trouble finding it. I sampled a dozen or so problematic tracks - and while they can still sound hard at times, there isn't that consistent hard sameness overlying itself on everything. What a relief.

 

Clearly the bridged computer can matter *greatly*. Bottom line is this: I consider the purchase of the used Mac Mini plus the MMK and JS-2 to have been worth every penny.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

Digital:  Sonore opticalModule > Uptone EtherRegen > Shunyata Sigma Ethernet > Antipodes K30 > Shunyata Omega USB > Gustard X26pro DAC < Mutec REF10 SE120

Amp & Speakers:  Spectral DMA-150mk2 > Aerial 10T

Foundation: Stillpoints Ultra, Shunyata Denali v1 and Typhon x1 power conditioners, Shunyata Delta v2 and QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation and Infinity power cords, QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation XLR interconnect, Shunyata Sigma Ethernet, MIT Matrix HD 60 speaker cables, GIK bass traps, ASC Isothermal tube traps, Stillpoints Aperture panels, Quadraspire SVT rack, PGGB 256

Link to comment
On Friday night I finally got to the point where I decided to throw in the towel on the direct connection. While I heard all the positive benefits others have reported here, I also heard a nasty coloration of sorts overlaying the music at times. Music that already had a tendency to sound hard had become somewhat painful to listen to. Not a good thing, obviously.

 

My direct connection computer was a 2008 Mac Pro with 4 internal SATA drives, a TV tuner card, and I think, at least 5 internal fans spinning all the time. Not the ideal machine for audio so I figured it might the culprit. I acquired for myself a new (used) Mac Mini plus an Uptone JS-2. The JS-2 arrived last week and today I received my Mac Mini back from Uptone with MMK kindly installed by Alex.

 

As soon as I got home from work I moved Roon over to the Mac Mini, which is running MacOS off an SD card. I also configured a bridge to create the direct connection. The JS-2 was set to power the Mac Mini from one rail and my Paul Pang switch from the other rail.

 

The supercharged Mac Mini delivered a significant upgrade over what I had been hearing from the Mac Pro. I consider the improvement to probably be on par with what one might get from a DAC upgrade.

 

I played "In the Mystic" from Moondance and I think must have gasped initially as the clarity was such that it sounded like I was in the recording studio. There was what seemed like a complete absence of equipment getting in the way of the music.

 

Clarity and focus - just astonishing. Dynamics - both macro and micro - just insane. Bass - bigger, badder, bolder.

 

That 2008 Mac Pro had clearly been holding back my system's performance. But also it seems that the JS-2 is very well deserving of the many positive things said and written about it.

 

As far as that coloration that had been getting on my nerves - I've been having trouble finding it. I sampled a dozen or so problematic tracks - and while they can still sound hard at times, there isn't that consistent hard sameness overlying itself on everything. What a relief.

 

Clearly the bridged computer can matter *greatly*. Bottom line is this: I consider the purchase of the used Mac Mini plus the MMK and JS-2 to have been worth every penny.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

Happy for you, Kenny! Also, a very helpful post and a wonderful endorsement of Uptone's JS-2 and MMK! I, too, have found this direct connection to be extremely revealing of what is upstream, perhaps to a fault, and your experience would suggest that if you don't have a great source, it might be best to avoid this direct connection but with proper care and attention to the source, there are many gains to be had. Hopefully, there are further remedies for some of that hardness you're still hearing. Have you tried CAD's OSX optimization?

Link to comment
Have you tried CAD's OSX optimization?

 

Not yet. The first SD card is configured in what I'm calling the "max install". It's Sierra with actual a few extra processes added for convenience.

 

I also intend to create a "min install" SD card with maybe Yosemite plus the CAD script applied. I'm eager to hear how that will compare to the other card and see if it's worth giving up some conveniences.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

Digital:  Sonore opticalModule > Uptone EtherRegen > Shunyata Sigma Ethernet > Antipodes K30 > Shunyata Omega USB > Gustard X26pro DAC < Mutec REF10 SE120

Amp & Speakers:  Spectral DMA-150mk2 > Aerial 10T

Foundation: Stillpoints Ultra, Shunyata Denali v1 and Typhon x1 power conditioners, Shunyata Delta v2 and QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation and Infinity power cords, QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation XLR interconnect, Shunyata Sigma Ethernet, MIT Matrix HD 60 speaker cables, GIK bass traps, ASC Isothermal tube traps, Stillpoints Aperture panels, Quadraspire SVT rack, PGGB 256

Link to comment
Not yet. The first SD card is configured in what I'm calling the "max install". It's Sierra with actual a few extra processes added for convenience.

 

I also intend to create a "min install" SD card with maybe Yosemite plus the CAD script applied. I'm eager to hear how that will compare to the other card and see if it's worth giving up some conveniences.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

You've got much to explore. Others have said Yosemite sounds better than Sierra and so I never bothered to upgrade. Some have suggested that the more expensive SLC SD cards sound better than the MLC SD cards but I never tried since they're quite a bit more expensive and max out at 32GB.

 

Down the road, should you continue to have hardness issues and are in the mood to explore, consider buying one of these for your Mac Mini:

 

NEW Apple Samsung 256GB SSD Flash drive from 2014 Mac Mini + cable PCI-E Mac | eBay

 

I have seen the 128GB PCIE SSD version listed from time to time for about $120 and so that is what I have which is plenty for an OS. Using the tools that came with your MMK, you can install it easily within 10 minutes and so you would have the option of booting an OS either from this SSD or from your SD card. While I believe running Mac OS from the SD card sounds better than from this PCIE SSD card, what the card allows is the option to run Windows 10 or Windows Server 2012R2 Essentials along with AO using Bootcamp. With the various sound signatures and digital filters that AO provides along with the much slimmer and quieter interface compared against Sierra or Yosemite, you might find the advantages of optimized Windows over Mac OS outweighing the tradeoffs of PCIE SSD vs SD. With my mR, I have found these different signatures and filters to be a God send. Windows Server is free to demo for 6 months and AO comes with a 15 day money back guarantee and so little to lose to try it.

Link to comment

Ive seen comments of users running an Intona with sotm sms-200. This is really needed only if the dac doesn't have galvanic isolation, am I right?

Sorry for the off topic.

In the beginning God made 'the light.'

Shortly thereafter God made three big mistakes.

The first mistake was called MAN, the second mistake was called WO-MAN, and the third mistake was the invention of THE POODLE.

Link to comment
Ive seen comments of users running an Intona with sotm sms-200. This is really needed only if the dac doesn't have galvanic isolation, am I right?

Sorry for the off topic.

 

No, it's not that simple. Galvanic isolation claims can vary widely. Really testing is the only way to know how good a DAC's claims are.

(JRiver) Jetway barebones NUC (mod 3 sCLK-EX, Cybershaft OP 14)  (PH SR7) => mini pcie adapter to PCIe 1X => tXUSBexp PCIe card (mod sCLK-EX) (PH SR7) => (USPCB) Chord DAVE => Omega Super 8XRS/REL t5i  (All powered thru Topaz Isolation Transformer)

Link to comment
Neither the sMS-200 Ultra nor the tX-USB Ultra will provide galvanic isolation. If this is something you need, you will probably still require the Intona. Should you use the Intona, you will get the GI you seek but the Intona will degrade your SI in other ways which is why you would then add the tX-USB Ultra after it. This is the type of complexity I find myself running away from when possible but sometimes the benefits are hard to ignore.

 

Well, this is where things get complicated, isn't it? Yes, in my current chain, I do have an Intona and RUR between streamer and DAC. And yes, the Intona does improve SQ. But the Intona would qualify as a bad clock, compared to the precision of the new SOtM sCLK-EX. So the chain would then become:

 

sMS-200Ultra ---------------> Intona --------------> tX-USBUltra -----------> DAC

(good clock) -----------------(bad clock) -------------(good clock)

 

The questions then becomes:

  1. does the benefit of the Intona (galvanic isolation) outweigh the harm (bad clock)?
  2. If yes, then is the good clock on the sMS-200 Ultra wasted?

 

I guess the only way to answer this will have to be to compare:

  1. sMS-200 Ultra ---> DAC
  2. sMS-200Ultra ---> Intona ---> tX-USBUltra ---> DAC
  3. sMS-200 ---> Intona ---> tX-USBUltra ---> DAC

 

I'd have to score some review samples to try that!

Link to comment
Well, this is where things get complicated, isn't it? Yes, in my current chain, I do have an Intona and RUR between streamer and DAC. And yes, the Intona does improve SQ. But the Intona would qualify as a bad clock, compared to the precision of the new SOtM sCLK-EX. So the chain would then become:

 

sMS-200Ultra ---------------> Intona --------------> tX-USBUltra -----------> DAC

(good clock) -----------------(bad clock) -------------(good clock)

 

The questions then becomes:

  1. does the benefit of the Intona (galvanic isolation) outweigh the harm (bad clock)?
  2. If yes, then is the good clock on the sMS-200 Ultra wasted?

 

I guess the only way to answer this will have to be to compare:

  1. sMS-200 Ultra ---> DAC
  2. sMS-200Ultra ---> Intona ---> tX-USBUltra ---> DAC
  3. sMS-200 ---> Intona ---> tX-USBUltra ---> DAC

 

I'd have to score some review samples to try that!

Yes, and I would like to know if one dropped the sms-200 and just went with the tx-USBUltra direct to the DAC, with and without the Intona preceding. This would be preferable in my case so as to allow high res video playback on my HTPC.

(JRiver) Jetway barebones NUC (mod 3 sCLK-EX, Cybershaft OP 14)  (PH SR7) => mini pcie adapter to PCIe 1X => tXUSBexp PCIe card (mod sCLK-EX) (PH SR7) => (USPCB) Chord DAVE => Omega Super 8XRS/REL t5i  (All powered thru Topaz Isolation Transformer)

Link to comment
which OSX are you using? And how many processes are running at playback?

 

Right now it's Sierra and there's been no attempt to reduce processes. I'll do a count when I get home.

 

A process I added is iStat Server so that I could actually monitor my Mac Mini using iStat for iOS. I captured the screen shot that follows while I was copying over my Roon directory from my Mac Pro. I find having the ability to monitor these stats can be helpful.

 

I'm very curious how much sonic benefit I'll get by eliminating process such as this and others. I'll be creating a Yosemite SD card probably this weekend and applying the CAD script to it.

 

IMG_0259.jpg

Digital:  Sonore opticalModule > Uptone EtherRegen > Shunyata Sigma Ethernet > Antipodes K30 > Shunyata Omega USB > Gustard X26pro DAC < Mutec REF10 SE120

Amp & Speakers:  Spectral DMA-150mk2 > Aerial 10T

Foundation: Stillpoints Ultra, Shunyata Denali v1 and Typhon x1 power conditioners, Shunyata Delta v2 and QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation and Infinity power cords, QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation XLR interconnect, Shunyata Sigma Ethernet, MIT Matrix HD 60 speaker cables, GIK bass traps, ASC Isothermal tube traps, Stillpoints Aperture panels, Quadraspire SVT rack, PGGB 256

Link to comment
what the card allows is the option to run Windows 10 or Windows Server 2012R2 Essentials along with AO using Bootcamp. With the various sound signatures and digital filters that AO provides along with the much slimmer and quieter interface compared against Sierra or Yosemite, you might find the advantages of optimized Windows over Mac OS outweighing the tradeoffs of PCIE SSD vs SD. With my mR, I have found these different signatures and filters to be a God send. Windows Server is free to demo for 6 months and AO comes with a 15 day money back guarantee and so little to lose to try it.

 

I made a promise to myself a while ago that I would never again install Windows on any of my own devices. It sounds like I might have to give this a shot though. Thanks for the information.

Digital:  Sonore opticalModule > Uptone EtherRegen > Shunyata Sigma Ethernet > Antipodes K30 > Shunyata Omega USB > Gustard X26pro DAC < Mutec REF10 SE120

Amp & Speakers:  Spectral DMA-150mk2 > Aerial 10T

Foundation: Stillpoints Ultra, Shunyata Denali v1 and Typhon x1 power conditioners, Shunyata Delta v2 and QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation and Infinity power cords, QSA Lanedri Gamma Revelation XLR interconnect, Shunyata Sigma Ethernet, MIT Matrix HD 60 speaker cables, GIK bass traps, ASC Isothermal tube traps, Stillpoints Aperture panels, Quadraspire SVT rack, PGGB 256

Link to comment
While I believe running Mac OS from the SD card sounds better than from this PCIE SSD card, what the card allows is the option to run Windows 10 or Windows Server 2012R2 Essentials along with AO using Bootcamp. With the various sound signatures and digital filters that AO provides along with the much slimmer and quieter interface compared against Sierra or Yosemite, you might find the advantages of optimized Windows over Mac OS outweighing the tradeoffs of PCIE SSD vs SD. With my mR, I have found these different signatures and filters to be a God send. Windows Server is free to demo for 6 months and AO comes with a 15 day money back guarantee and so little to lose to try it.

 

This raises an interesting question?

 

- I deployed a NAS because it brought enormous utility to my entertainment eco-system. I can access my content anywhere at anytime on a myriad of devices. It has its drawbacks and is likely introduces degradations that I am forced to make up for upstream, but the utility trumps this.

 

Both the mR and sMS-200 are microcomputers designed for a very specific purpose, operating as the NAA.

 

Unfortunately neither the mR or sMS-200 appear to have sufficient resources to operate as the server, which is unfortunate. I realize both companies make servers, but their servers incorporate storage which I believe is a massive functional mismatch.

 

It seems that the ideal scenario would be an mR or sMS-200 with a lightweight linux based OS, sufficient resources to operate as an audiophile server. The missing component for a complete entertainment system would be video processing allowing them to function as the HTPC (Kodi), eliminating the need for PC/MAC in the mix and all the associated degredation and headaches that come with trying to use them as such.

 

Does anyone build and audiophile grade NUC like this? Mini PC Intel® NUC Kit NUC7i5BNH

Link to comment
This raises an interesting question?

.....Does anyone build and audiophile grade NUC like this? Mini PC Intel® NUC Kit NUC7i5BNH

That's exactly my audio server setup but with some further optimizations.

 

Here's my H/W configuration:Intel NUC D54250WYHK with Streacom NC2 fanless chassis powered by Keces DC116-19V/6A LPS. It's a shame that Intel changes NUC's mechanical outline for each generation. NC2 can't be fit for recent NUC. If you are into DIY then you can look for Akasa. They have plenty of chassis for you to choose from. Akasa Thermal Solution

 

Or you can just pick a complete set of fanless NUC from company like QuietPC. https://www.quietpc.com/sys-ultranuc-pro-6-fanless

 

For S/W part, I'm using Daphile. It's based on Gentoo and LMS. The entire S/W package is just around 200MB. It can be put in a USB flash drive and boot from it. Unplug the USB then you can boot your Windows from the internal SSD. Of course you have to configure PC bios to boot from USB first.

 

From what I understand the Daphile is not just another light weight Linux plus LMS. One of the major advantage is that the OS is Read Once Run Forever, meaning that the OS only needs to be read from USB once and loaded into system RAM then leave it there. Same mechanism for other software module. No further USB re-access is needed during normal music playback.

 

There's one great feature in the Daphile which is RAM play. You can load as many albums into RAM as you like as long as there's enough free memory. Again, this means there's no HDD or SSD access after the music is loaded into RAM. All this can reduce the current fluctuation caused by USB and HDD/SSD operation which is the main cause of SQ degradation on the music server.

 

Another function that this thread is talking about is network bridging. Daphile can auto-configure network bridge if you have 2 Ethernet ports. However this function is half complete. You have to configure sMS-200/mR the normal way befor connect to the bridge. After bridging sMS-200/mR is only recognized by Daphile. They are blocked to the outside world. But once you finished the configuration you just hook it to the NUC with direct connection. The Daphile will recognize sMS-200/mR without any problem. One hint to remember is that there's a boot sequence to be followed. Boot SMS-200/mR first then Daphile next.

 

I'm sure you'll find the SQ to be much better than any Windows or Mac OS.

Link to comment

Another function that this thread is talking about is network bridging. Daphile can auto-configure network bridge if you have 2 Ethernet ports. However this function is half complete. You have to configure sMS-200/mR the normal way befor connect to the bridge. After bridging sMS-200/mR is only recognized by Daphile. They are blocked to the outside world. But once you finished the configuration you just hook it to the NUC with direct connection. The Daphile will recognize sMS-200/mR without any problem. One hint to remember is that there's a boot sequence to be followed. Boot SMS-200/mR first then Daphile next.

Thanks for your input.

 

+1 for the DAPHILE's great quality (I am the DAPHILE's user too)

 

 

As you have experienced the network bridging with DAPHILE, I have 2 questions :

 

1. Do you think it will work if I hook 2nd DAPHILE PC (player) as the NAA in this way (bridged network) ?

 

2. Have you found any improvement in SQ hooking the NAA directly to DAPHILE's LMS ? (in comparison to the "normal" way)

 

Thanks in advance and nice day to everybody.

CD40s (3DLab) - EDEL NMR (Engineered) -or- DAPHILE (Q1900itx (Asrock) + LPS 100W (HDPLEX) + tX-USBexp (SOtM) - HYDRA-Z (Audiobyte) + LPS-1 (UpTone) - BLACK DRAGON (Audiobyte) - 2 x Ncore NC400 (Hypex) - M4 (P. E. Léon) - Cables: (Mapleshade, Audioprana, Nordost, Referenz1017, Pangea, Zavfino, Elecaudio, Tomanek) + FMC (TPlink) & NAS (OMV)

Link to comment
For S/W part, I'm using Daphile. It's based on Gentoo and LMS. The entire S/W package is just around 200MB. It can be put in a USB flash drive and boot from it. Unplug the USB then you can boot your Windows from the internal SSD. Of course you have to configure PC bios to boot from USB first.

 

From what I understand the Daphile is not just another light weight Linux plus LMS. One of the major advantage is that the OS is Read Once Run Forever, meaning that the OS only needs to be read from USB once and loaded into system RAM then leave it there. Same mechanism for other software module. No further USB re-access is needed during normal music playback.

 

There's one great feature in the Daphile which is RAM play. You can load as many albums into RAM as you like as long as there's enough free memory. Again, this means there's no HDD or SSD access after the music is loaded into RAM. All this can reduce the current fluctuation caused by USB and HDD/SSD operation which is the main cause of SQ degradation on the music server.

 

Another function that this thread is talking about is network bridging. Daphile can auto-configure network bridge if you have 2 Ethernet ports. However this function is half complete. You have to configure sMS-200/mR the normal way befor connect to the bridge. After bridging sMS-200/mR is only recognized by Daphile. They are blocked to the outside world. But once you finished the configuration you just hook it to the NUC with direct connection. The Daphile will recognize sMS-200/mR without any problem. One hint to remember is that there's a boot sequence to be followed. Boot SMS-200/mR first then Daphile next.

 

I'm sure you'll find the SQ to be much better than any Windows or Mac OS.

Thanks for sharing this. Daphile sounds like a great option. Have you directly compared it against an optimized Windows 10 or Windows 2012 Server environment, especially with AO?

 

My only concern is that I'd have to give up Roon. Having to manage nearly 5k albums without Roon would be a real joy kill for me but I do like how you get Tidal and Spotify access + CD ripping capability.

 

Here's another optimized Linux option recently presented to me by someone and it has Roon capability, however, it's not clear if you can bridge your LAN ports with it:

 

HOME • Euphony Drive

Link to comment
Thanks for your input.

 

+1 for the DAPHILE's great quality (I am the DAPHILE's user too)

 

 

As you have experienced the network bridging with DAPHILE, I have 2 questions :

 

1. Do you think it will work if I hook 2nd DAPHILE PC (player) as the NAA in this way (bridged network) ?

 

2. Have you found any improvement in SQ hooking the NAA directly to DAPHILE's LMS ? (in comparison to the "normal" way)

 

Thanks in advance and nice day to everybody.

It's glad to know that you are one of the happy Daphile user too. I also noticed that you have a HydraZ in your audio chain. I own one too. Indeed, it's a good choice. May I suggest you to consider Mutec MC-3+USB if you plan to upgrade your DDC in the future. It's better than HydraZ IMHO. To further improve MC-3+USB's performance here's another option with great C/P value you can consider about.’´‚¸“xOCXOƒNƒƒbƒN Premium

As to Using NAA with Daphile, I believe that Daphile uses Squeezelite as the renderer only. NAA can't be cooperated with Daphile. So my answer to your questions is no.However if you ask me is there any SQ improvement hooking squeezelite directly to Daphile comparing to "normal" connection? Then my answer is a big YES!

Link to comment
Thanks for sharing this. Daphile sounds like a great option. Have you directly compared it against an optimized Windows 10 or Windows 2012 Server environment, especially with AO?

 

My only concern is that I'd have to give up Roon. Having to manage nearly 5k albums without Roon would be a real joy kill for me but I do like how you get Tidal and Spotify access + CD ripping capability.

 

Here's another optimized Linux option recently presented to me by someone and it has Roon capability, however, it's not clear if you can bridge your LAN ports with it:

 

HOME • Euphony Drive

 

Yes, it's a pity that Daphile isn't compatible with Roon. And unfortunately I don't have AO or similar to compare with. I use normal Win10 pro with JRMC. I too, like to know how it compares to optimized Windows or Mac.

 

The Euphony drive seems to be an interesting solution. But the flash drive only business model may scares some out. Nowadays we all like try-before-buy. That'll be grate if it has such program.

Link to comment

@ gadgetman

Thanks for your reply.

Sorry for misunderstanding, my question concerned Squeezelite, as a kind of "NAA" (a player hooked directly to the server), not really the NAA in the meaning of the HQplayer NAA.

So I am very gladit could be possible (and the SQ improvement is big :-) ), I will retry (because my test from some days ago was unsuccessful - maybe because of the boot sequence you are talking about).

 

Thanks a much for the Mutec & Cybershaft advice too, I will consider the try. Is the difference really worth it ?

 

PS

What do you mean by DDC ?

CD40s (3DLab) - EDEL NMR (Engineered) -or- DAPHILE (Q1900itx (Asrock) + LPS 100W (HDPLEX) + tX-USBexp (SOtM) - HYDRA-Z (Audiobyte) + LPS-1 (UpTone) - BLACK DRAGON (Audiobyte) - 2 x Ncore NC400 (Hypex) - M4 (P. E. Léon) - Cables: (Mapleshade, Audioprana, Nordost, Referenz1017, Pangea, Zavfino, Elecaudio, Tomanek) + FMC (TPlink) & NAS (OMV)

Link to comment
@ gadgetman

Thanks for your reply.

Sorry for misunderstanding, my question concerned Squeezelite, as a kind of "NAA" (a player hooked directly to the server), not really the NAA in the meaning of the HQplayer NAA.

So I am very gladit could be possible (and the SQ improvement is big :-) ), I will retry (because my test from some days ago was unsuccessful - maybe because of the boot sequence you are talking about).

 

Thanks a much for the Mutec & Cybershaft advice too, I will consider the try. Is the difference really worth it ?

 

PS

What do you mean by DDC ?

If you're not sure whether or not the bridge is working you can ssh into Daphile to check it. But as you may know that the ssh function is removed in the stable version. You can only do it on beta version. You can check the bridge and the other side of the bridge by using the following commands:

 

ssh daphile.local (or the IP address of your Daphile server) (login as root and password is "zaq" without quotation mark) then you can see a prompt looks like this:

 

daphile ~ # (then type the following commands)

daphile ~ # ifconfig br0 (if you see IP address of 192.168.128.1 then it's almost working)

daphile ~ # arp -i br0 (you should be able to see the IP address of eunhasu.local or renduplayer.local)

daphile ~ # ping -c 3 eunhasu.local (or IP address)

 

Regarding the SQ difference of Mutec + Cybershaft v.s. HydraZ, it's system dependent. While with my pre-Chord DAVE the SQ is a big step up. But using with DAVE I can hardly differentiate the difference. So YMMV.

 

DDC means Digital to Digital Converter, such as USB to SPDIF or the like can be called DDC.

Link to comment

Thanks a much gadgetman, very instructive :)

I will make a try asap.

 

Otherwise I am very happy with HydraZ + Black Dragon DAC, but now I need to make a test with a Mutec, etc. (your fault :-) )

CD40s (3DLab) - EDEL NMR (Engineered) -or- DAPHILE (Q1900itx (Asrock) + LPS 100W (HDPLEX) + tX-USBexp (SOtM) - HYDRA-Z (Audiobyte) + LPS-1 (UpTone) - BLACK DRAGON (Audiobyte) - 2 x Ncore NC400 (Hypex) - M4 (P. E. Léon) - Cables: (Mapleshade, Audioprana, Nordost, Referenz1017, Pangea, Zavfino, Elecaudio, Tomanek) + FMC (TPlink) & NAS (OMV)

Link to comment

BTW - I had an email back from May on some questions and she gave me two nuggets of info:

 

 

  1. the sMS-200 Ultra's SQ is improved significantly in their own listening tests by adding the tX-USB Ultra in series. Obviously, we'll need to validate that in the community, but @romaz 's findings with the dX-USB HD (with sCLK-EX clocking) certainly support this.
  2. She doesn't have the exact specs finalized, but she thinks the sMS-200 Ultra will require at least 1.5A (this is not an official number, so don't hold me to this) - which means we may have to look at other PSes than the LPS-1 to power it. It will be interesting to see what their upcoming sPS-500 PS really is, and whether it is ultracapacitor based. She could not share any details yet.

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...