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

[ted_b]

On 11/20/2018 at 6:24 PM, Johnseye said:

I asked Jussi @Miska to add ramroot to his bootable HQPlayer NAA and he quickly put it in his build.

 

https://www.signalyst.eu/bins/naa/images/

naa-3552-x64.7z 

I like what I'm hearing.  I've only listened to a couple songs at first listen it's similar if not the same as what I hear with Audiolinux headless running HQPlayer NAA.

As soon as I get my new home's audio room built I plan on having Larry build me a NUC for HQPlayer NAA (I already have a powerful upsampling server, currently running Win10 but likely running whatever you guys tell me, aka AL ramboot; Note: I ran HQPlayer embedded and started that thread in my past life, but then went back to single pc Windows for whatever reason).  But, I'd like to ask those of you (johnseye, elan120, Em2016, etc) who are instead running Jussi's own bootable Linux ramroot NAA image (and comparing it favorably) two things:

1) would my endpoint NUC decision be any different if I focused on Jussi's bootable ramroot NAA image instead of AL (i.e smaller, larger, different RAM, etc) as my goal;

2) what are you folks running as an upsampler machine, and how connected to the ramroot-NAA? 

Thx

Ted

[ted_b]

2 minutes ago, lmitche said:

Ted,

 

While not a direct answer, with boot from the USB stick, it is trivial to try various boot images, so it will be easy for you try to various settings. In a similar way, changing the player software on the server is also very straightforward within Audiolinux.

Larry,

Thanks.  When I was dabbling in HQPlayer embedded I understood the USB boot flexibility.  My real question was, given that HQPlayer will be the player, and that a NUC will be the endpoint, whether this table stake affects NUC choices (Celeron, Pentium, i7, etc) and choices within the NUC architecture (RAM, etc).  I'd hate to have you build a NUC based on what sounds best for Roon endpoints, for example.

 

My other question is about the server OS and whether I should change not only the OS (Windows vs Linux) but possibly the hardware.  In either case I don't expect the server to be in the room with me (assuming we settle on a 2 box solution with NAA Linux-flavored) and can be open to Al ramroot'd monster-NUC (oxymoron) server if necessary.  I plan to continue to do NOS-based dac seeing up to DSD512 via HQPlayer.

 

[ted_b]

1 hour ago, elan120 said:

Ted,

 

1)  Using NUC build by Larry with standard spec'ed for Roon bridging, you can test Roon bridging and HQP NAA setup in AL image as well as Jussi's ramroot NAA image with the same hardware.

 

2)  My current updampler is a Windows PC I recently build running DSD512 non-2s filters (mostly poly-sinc-xtr), and connected to ramroot NAA first via wifi, later bridged, and now bridged with a OCXO clocked ZyXEL switch.

 

Hope this is clear enough to your 2 Q's

Very clear!  Thanks!

 

I may indeed opt for the largest endpoint NUC Larry recommends, assuming no SQ hit, since we don't know what additional renderer requirements are coming down the road (nothing too cpu intensive likely, otherwise defeats the purpose of isolated renderer...but who knows).

[ted_b]

2 hours ago, sig8 said:

I am running RAMroot AL on an i7 machine with HQPe , and +4,000 album JRiver managed library as control, based on your other thread, no problems. Also tried AL headless NAA on Celeron based PC. NUC to come shortly to be used as NAA.

Ashok,

I will email you since most of what I need to ask is OT.  Thx!

[ted_b]

Bob, great post.  I especially like the final point: put 20 hours into just listening to music.  Although it seems to be an obvious point to many, some will fail  to realize that you can't hurry this stuff, especially when everyone's listening biases and environments are different.  It's a balancing act, but if person A likes things a little "left" and person B likes things a little "further left" their next steps in the process are quite different.  There is no way one will realize this unless he/she stops and listens to the music for several hours.  This will allow the listener to evaluate, enjoy, evaluate, enjoy and then finally make an informed decision on what to do next.  If the "enjoy" part is not realized then this whole experiment will frustrate the hell out of you!! 

 

As one who has been uncomfortably on the sidelines for a year (I usually live for this stuff) I am going to have to take my own advice x100.  I want it all, and I want it now!  But a new room, a new set of challenges, hell...listening at 6000 ft!  All of this will be new to me, and i need to reconstruct my best listening system very deliberately.   Gulp!    Bob's reiteration of the best of Rajiv, Larry and the rest of the thought leaders is a great reminder.  Thx again. 

[ted_b]

Roy, very informative post.  Regarding your surprise at Euphony's SQ, is that also despite the fact that your Euphony use was with an SSD?.

[ted_b]

Sorry Valveboy, I wasn't at all trying to be funny.  Not sure why you think so.  Um, er...welcome to AC.

[ted_b]

15 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

I just pull from my NAS.

 

Larry @lmitche has reported good results with an HDD in an external enclosure, powered by a separate LPS. Search back for his findings.

Yes, we use a startech USB 3.1 card and a Startech USB 3.1 hdd enclosure, separately powered.  The JCAT card is great too. 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00XLAZEFC/ref=oh_aui_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

[ted_b]

Yes, after reading some, if it supports 6Tb then it supports 32 bit LBA, which means 8 TB is in spec.  ?  Mine houses a 6TB "favorites" music subset library (wow, I need a new hobby).

[ted_b]

6 hours ago, austinpop said:

If these changes pan out, along with a more reasonable pricing model for a server/endpoint setup, then Euphony is a very compelling offering. Yes, it's not cheap, but the SQ benefits are definitely there.

Rajiv, I get that Euphony costs $295 per box, and that AL is free.  But it seems you and others have found sq improvements with it, so I ask this, in light of your "it's not cheap" comments, and insistence of Roon (which is also not cheap)....are there better $295 sq investments to make instead?  I ask cuz it seems like the road to your current setup involved several investments that make Euphony's one pale in comparison.  I could be wrong.  Thx

[ted_b]

5 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

The problem is they don't accommodate their existing customer's interests if it pulls resources away from their roadmap.

Do they publish their roadmap?  I ask cuz I am no longer a Roon user so I don't stay up-to-date; I had a license through our (NativeDSD) partnership with them but it somehow unexpectedly expired (the license).  I now have little inspiration to go out and spend on my own when HQPlayer has always been my end game...but nobody here is trying or reporting on Euphony with HQPlayer.    Off my OT soapbox.

[ted_b]

49 minutes ago, Chopin75 said:

Euphony and its Stylus likely work synergistically meaning they both work together most efficiently and is designed mainly for single box use. I am not sure why Wifi  would benefit over ethernet. It has been said or believed that Ethernet is much preferred to Wifi. At least I switched off wifi before when i was using my macbook using audirvanna. Pinkfaun also sells some sort of ethernet bridge/conditioner to help. 

As was pointed out above, Wifi handles GI very well.  A number of folks I highly trust (like lmitche) verify that wifi is indeed a very doable solution for best sq (on the NUC endpoint, for example).  I'm not sure why there would be a moratorium on wifi from Euphony.  Seems to be as strange as forbidding customers to buy a license if they use brand X speakers.  What do they care?

[ted_b]

I love Jeff's work.  He's been my acoustician since 2011 (redid my NE Ohio music room and it was transformational; wrote it up on Audio Circle back then).  He's designing my new Colorado home music room currently.  We chat and exchange plans and tweaks weekly if not more.  Jeff knows acoustics, and is a great bass player (once played with Chuck Berry at end of Chuck's career).  His services are tremendously high value.

[ted_b]

5 minutes ago, afrancois said:

Every streaming solution whether it be an sMS-200 Ultra or something else, takes a lot of effort to come even close to the best CD players. CD players are stand-alone units that don't have to cope with the complexity (and electrical pollution) of  a network.

Getting my popcorn ready!    This should be good.

[ted_b]

I’m sure the Burmester was great. Even their sampler cds were great. My popcorn comment was just cuz I anticipated a good debate starting. CD players have their own gremlins (internal power supplies, spinning platters, laser errors etc etc) but yes I’ve heard darn good ones. But streamers (a broad product category here) can handle so many more sample rates and formats and be supported by powerful infrastructures that they have real advantages.  The efficiencies and techniques espoused by the thought leaders on this type of thread were not even in the gestational stage back in the heyday of cd players

[ted_b]

10 minutes ago, Superdad said:

 

Hi Nenon:

Nice post.

While I too enjoy using the I2S/LVDS input (on the Holo Spring L3 currently), what you say about most DACs not reclocking the I2S is not correct.  DACs such as the PS Audio units, most ESS Sabre DACs, and most others do not rely solely on the audio clock of the external I2S. The Holo Spring and I am sure a couple of others are the exception (and certainly this accounts for the large delta I hear when feeding it a well-clocked I2S).

Cheers,

--Alex C.

Alex,

What are you using, currently, to feed the I2S input of the Holo?  Still the SU-1?  Sorry, I haven't been keeping up.

[ted_b]

Two things:

* its been said many times that the Pink Faun I2S bridge simply does not support DSD. I would think that is enough evidence 😀

* I’m gonna assume you meant DSD256 with EC modulators. DSD512 w/ EC  is unobtanium right now. 

[ted_b]

Bob,

I feel like I am  coming in on this conversation like someone at a cocktail party, where he joins a group and says "what are you guys talking about..." to get up to speed.    Sorry.  But isn't "endpoint" rather vague when it comes to the various tasks/architectures that an endpoint can be asked to do?  I mean, Jussi's NAA architecture, and his minimalist/isolationist approach to "dac driver and that is all" is likely quite different than what is optimal for a Roon endpoint, or some other endpoint set of orders.  Is Romaz's experience with HQPlayer and NAA, or some other thing (I should know this but sitting on the sidelines is very difficult)?  And your experiences?  Thx...send me a pertinent link if this is hashing over old already-discussed material. 

[ted_b]

1 hour ago, bobfa said:

When I say endpoint I mean. The renderer, D to D. Typically Ethernet to USB or other DAC input. 
 

 

Sorry if I didn't explain my point.  I realize that an endpoint can be a renderer  But it can also be a rather simplified FIFO buffer, as in Jussi's NAA architecture.  I am asking whether you (or Romaz, in this example) believe these different functions would have different cpu, power, noise profiles....or is low-power-low-noise no longer the perfect endpoint box in ANY circumstance?

[ted_b]

On my Z270 mobo I use a Startech 4-USB card (PCIE) and then will use Larry's idea of two bridged NICs to get ethernet direct to/from cpu.  And other two USB ports are direct (I think), one to my StarTech hdd enclosure.

[ted_b]

Nenon, 

Have you tried any of the cheap finds that folks like Larry (lmitche) speak of, say,  the Monoprice Cat8?

[ted_b]

14 minutes ago, Aberrant-Decoder said:

Are there any good suggestions for an ethernet card, similar to the startech USB card that a budget minded DIY'er could investigate?

Many of us with the startech card use a simple inexpensive internet dongle (rj45 to usb). 

[ted_b]

5 hours ago, cat6man said:

regarding audio-linux v. euphony

 

i see that many folks have moved from audio-linux to euphony over the past months with reports that euphony sounds better...............so i got a trial of euphony to check it out...........and the results are very interesting.

 

common baseline:

running HQPplayer embedded in server to NAA running on opticalRendu, much network optimization.

HQP running pcm only, no upscaling, no dither, just bit exact (theory being that having renderer at server and minimal processing at NAA is a good thing to do).  music on HDD attached via usb to NUC running music server

 

audio-linux running in ramroot, realtime set to extreme

euphony running on usb stick (in ramroot, it doesn't see HDD, so couldn't test ramroot)

 

tests:

audio-linux 2.5 -- meh

euphony 20200114v3 -- meh

audio-linux 1.4 -- wow!

 

in my system, the old build of audio-linux is vastly superior to the newer builds of both audio-linux and euphony and it isn't close.  i have not chosen to compare the first two as who cares if mehA is superior to mehB when you have wow as an option.

 

since YMMV, i'd love to hear from other audio-linux and euphony users.  try comparing your current servers with the old audio-linux 1.4 and let us know if you agree/disagree

 

something is going on here but damned if i know what............scheduling/queuing algorithms in the realtime scheduler, arch-linux build variations/issues, ?????.....................but whatever it is, it isn't minor.

i can't listen to the first two for more than a few minutes before the difference is obvious and i'm back to the audio-linux 1.4 build.

 

stay safe out there!

 

p.s. will be upgrading music server from hdplex200 to hdplex300 this week

 

Great post, but this would be even more relevant in the "Shootout at the Linux Corral: Audiolinux vs Euphony" thread, no?

 

[ted_b]

I guess I am confused over Roy and Rajiv's decision to use HQPlayer after spending HUGE bucks getting an Extreme.  But first:

1)  I am a huge HQPlayer fanboy;

2) I understand the zero-stress (massively over spec'd, under-utilized OS and hardware sq path) philosophy of the Extreme.

 

When one commits to a dual cpu approach, then isn't HQPlayer a non-starter?  Additionally, isn't the fact that the upsampling requirements of HQplayer are diametrically opposed to the zero-stress philosophy of the Extreme (like buying a Tesla Roadster then realizing you need to tow a 60 ft boat/trailer).  I mean, even in the use case of HQPlayer Pro (and using some computer, Extreme or otherwise, to do the offline processing) isn't the Extreme a poor choice as an HQPlayer playback engine, since it doesn't recognize half the processing in the box? 

 

Wouldn't it make more sense to either sell and reinvest in heavy lifting, or use another software player that can see both cpus?  Jussi tries to get around the idea of noisy, grunting heavy lifting by using a separate NAA, but the Extreme is so unbelievably overkill (and still has one hand tied behind its back) for that purpose. 

 

I may be missing something here, but Extreme and HQplayer do not coexist IMHO, unless one were to offline process (HQP Pro) then use another software player optimized for Extreme.  In that case, save some budget for more storage, as now your files are all DSD512. 

[ted_b]

2 hours ago, romaz said:

It's easy to think this and I used to wonder about this myself until my Extreme arrived and I heard what it could do with bit-perfect playback.

I meant as an NAA, but point taken. 

 

Rajiv and Roy, thanks for the responses about HQP and PCM upsampling.  Jussi has done a great job there, and even though he and Emile have not worked out how to run V4 on both cpu's (thanks Roy) it sounds like the slight cpu load is a great tradeoff vs the superiority of Jussi's engine and dither/filter choices.  I've always loved Rob's work, and have been a staunch supporter of Chord for many years.  There is no DAC that I've heard that surpasses PCM musicality better than a Chord.  But for me, a personal decision, I also have loads of DSD recordings...so my DAC and upsampling choices need to have a native DSD option, both 2 channel and multi.