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

[Johnseye]

May emailed me that their upgrade program has started.  I purchased my sMS through Crux which offers free shipping back and forth.  It should take about 10 days and the offer is only good through July 7th.

 

http://www.sotm-audio.com/sotmwp/english/press-release-sms-200ultra/

 

The $300 modded switch is a D-Link 5 Port Gigabit DGS-105.

[Johnseye]

2 hours ago, Johnseye said:

May emailed me that their upgrade program has started.  I purchased my sMS through Crux which offers free shipping back and forth.  It should take about 10 days and the offer is only good through July 7th.

 

http://www.sotm-audio.com/sotmwp/english/press-release-sms-200ultra/

 

The $300 modded switch is a D-Link 5 Port Gigabit DGS-105.

 

By the way, the upgrade until July includes the master clock interface for what that's worth.

 

Good points @austinpop.  The mod isn't a true master slave but a replacement through rewire.  That's more of a Frankenstein, but effective approach to clock replacement.  I still think they should just substitute the clocks and whatever else is needed on the actual sms-200 board as opposed to bootstrap an sclk board.

 

However if one uses the master clock option on the sms-200 that would be what is referenced in the article.

[Johnseye]

45 minutes ago, rickca said:

Yes, you need to do some more research.  SOtM wants $300 for a switch clock mod, and $150 for a 2nd clock point mod.  That's why I left that question for May asking what happened to $25 per clock point.  Start looking here:

https://sotm-usa.com/products/sms-200ultra-audio-network-player-mods

 

An example of price by demand.  A "special" for those interested in upgrading.  They clearly expect people to flock to the upgrade special for one month only.  Their business, their rules.  One can always go elsewhere or just not buy.  Cries of injustice usually goes unheeded and action speaks louder than words.

[Johnseye]

Just now, rickca said:

I'm perfectly capable of making my own decision.  No need to talk down to me.

 

Honestly that wasn't my intention, sorry you took it that way.  Notice I used the word "one" and not "you".  It was a general statement.  I guess the same could be said for your comment to do some more research to Bamber, but he didn't cry about it.  Jeez, touchy.

[Johnseye]

4 minutes ago, rickca said:

OK, peace!  I shouldn't have taken it personally.

 

[Johnseye]

5 minutes ago, lmitche said:

Well there you go!  That must be the improvement over individual clocks as all components move to the beat of a single drum.

 

Be careful.  What you described is a master clock and would not be the improvement as we know it today.  Rajiv explained this well a few posts ago.  The difference is that the clock of multiple components are replaced by the clock on the sclk-ex board.  It happens that these clocks are superior to the device's original and that they are all located on the same sclk-ex board.

[Johnseye]

1 hour ago, AmusedToD said:

Just a quick update on my side.

 

I emailed May from SOTM and asked her whether it's possible for them to modify the clock of an Intel NUC LAN controller so that it can use the superior clock inside the sms200Ultra and they said yes!

 

The idea is to use the Intel NUC with the modded LAN clock as Roon server (probably with the Roon OS), and then connect it directly via Ethernet to my sms200ultra. This way a switch in between can be avoided.

 

 

That's what Roy is doing, although he's taking it a little further than that.  We're all waiting to see if it makes a substantial improvement.

[Johnseye]

18 minutes ago, hicr49 said:

Hi,

First, thanks everyone who contributing to this very informative and fascinating thread.

I'm planning to purchase a sMS-200ultra with switch mod.  That'll use up three of the four clock connections on the 200ultra.  I also plan on getting an Intel NUC7 as a music server running Roon's ROCK.  I wonder if it might be any way beneficial to have SOtM mod this NUC to utilize and accept the the last clock available on the 200ultra?  I'm not sure if this act is worth investigating or if there might be any draw back from doing so?  Also, what might happen to the modded NUC in the case if I not longer want to connect it to the 200ultra clock?

Thanks!

 

It would be worth it.  To what extent we don't know yet but you have an extra clock to use and only need to pay extra for the shipping.  I'd do it.

[Johnseye]

4 minutes ago, austinpop said:

Hi All,

 

There are several threads like this one, which have grown into monsters, albeit really helpful ones, over time. I've felt for some time that we need some kind of index/FAQ that could be pinned in some way, to which we can point folks to the "good stuff."

 

After some discussion and consideration of the possibilities with @The Computer Audiophile, he has just announced a new feature, that allows the OP to edit the first post in a thread in perpetuity.

This enables the creation of an index, but someone has to curate it. @romaz started this thread, so by default, he has the edit authority of the original post. However, Chris has indicated that he can manually assign edit authority to an alternate of the OP's choosing.

 

Roy, if you're still tuned in, your thoughts are welcome here. But I'm going to assume you do not have the bandwidth to curate this, so I am preemptively putting out a call for volunteers!

 

Would someone be willing to edit the first post and create an index - after Roy's initial writeup? This could be as simple as a bulleted list of links to important/useful posts, with perhaps an explanatory phrase or sentence.

 

Any volunteers?

 

Or create a new thread and sticky it, which contains all the pertinent info from this one.  There is some value in having this entire thread as a reference, but it has spider webbed into multiple topics, including custom built servers, USB clock, cabling, etc.

[Johnseye]

5 hours ago, romaz said:

Prior to Munich, based on the already spectacular sound I was getting from my SOtM stack, based on disparaging  articles such as the one written by Hugh Robjohns that was referenced by @Johnseye, and based on my own lukewarm experience with dCS’s external master clock last year, I had no intention of ever buying an external master clock and I even posted this sentiment back in April.  Of course, part of this sentiment was also based on wishful thinking because I didn’t relish the idea of paying thousands of dollars for a master clock and all the hassle that went with it.  Munich, however, changed all of that.  

 

 

 

As I read Hugh Robjohns’ article, “Does Your Studio Need A Digital Master Clock,” I read with interest his concluding statement.  “Overall, it should be clear…that employing an external master clock cannot and will not improve the sound quality of a digital audio system.”  My response?  Don’t listen to people like this who speak in such absolute terms and define audio performance purely on technical grounds.  Just because he compared 4 external master clocks and couldn’t measure an improvement doesn’t make it a universal truth.  If you read further into his conclusion, he suggests that anyone who prefers what a master clock provides is preferring the subjective qualities of that clock and not its technical performance.  Obviously, this article was written from a professional studio perspective and not from the viewpoint of most audiophiles because I don’t know any audiophile who would want it any other way.  While it’s comforting for me when things that sound good also measure well, I think most of us can appreciate that superior measurements don’t always equal better sound.  When things that sound better don't measure better, as I see it, either the measuring equipment isn't sensitive enough to discern a difference or else the wrong things are being measured.

 

 

Trust your ears.  Forget what the experts tell you if what they say contradicts what you are hearing.  Listening trumps theories or measurements, at least it should.  It’s amazing how an authority figure makes a claim, it gets propagated by the masses, and before long, this claim somehow becomes an irrefutable law of physics.  Sometimes, these experts aren’t measuring the right things.  Many times, they’re as clueless as we are.  If it measures better but you can’t hear the difference, don’t buy it.  If it measures poorly but you love how it sounds, that’s all that matters.

 

 

 

What you are discovering could be a path leading to the master clock architecture being the best solution for home audio.  You and others started down the path of improving a clock, then multiple clocks unlinked, then multiple clocks linked (quasi mastered), then what you've just heard was a full master clock.  There are other variables involved, specifically the quality of the clock itself as that continues to improve in each scenario.  There are still many variables to consider, and that the REF10 was heard at a convention, not in your own home to compare with your previous system, but if what you heard was enough to prompt the REF10 purchase there could be good things to come.  I'm looking forward to your side by side comparison with the sCLK-EX.

 

I mean this with all sincerity, you should write Hugh Robjohns.  He wrote that article 7 years ago but he may be interested in your discoveries.  Maybe his opinions or findings have changed over the years.  You write that one shouldn't blindly trust one person making a statement regardless of whether they're an expert in their field with measurement tools and I agree.  Surprising to heat this from a doctor, but I'm sure that sentiment is valid in your field as well.  One person's findings are just that.

 

In the end, as you point out, all that matters is what sounds good to you.  This is a defacto standard in this hobby.  Everyone's a scientist or engineer in discovery, but everyone's system, listening environment, budget and personal tastes are different.  While listening may trump measurements, Lee's comments on his jitter measurements has and impact on both opinion and his designs.  Measurements shouldn't be discarded, even if you don't think you can hear it.  I'm glad you're putting the investment into this endeavor and sharing your opinions.  I'll be keeping an eye out for your final conclusions once they've been made on the clock.  A lot has been learned, and a lot has changed in the course of a few months.

[Johnseye]

4 minutes ago, romaz said:

 

My new DR SR7 has arrived and the difference against my single regulated SR7 is easily noticeable and very worthwhile.  Improved dynamic contrasts and an even smoother, more relaxed and effortless presentation.  I wasn't sure how my SR7 could get better and now I know.  This is a highly recommended upgrade and I have now decided to replace my standard SR7MR2XL with the DR version.

 

Here is what Paul Hynes had to say:

 

"The DR version effectively expands the dynamic range of clean power delivery by reducing output voltage sag with larger load transient current delivery and reducing the overall noise level of the output voltage rail over the range of load current change. There are other benefits but I would prefer you to have the experience of these before I say anything further, as I do not want to affect your conclusions in any way."

 

My understanding is that the DR version is single rail only, and not available in multirail.  Can you confirm if this has changed?

[Johnseye]

21 minutes ago, limniscate said:

I sure can because I ordered a DRMR2XL.  It fits in the MR4 chassis.

 

7 minutes ago, romaz said:

 

John, here is what Paul had to say.  My preference has always been to have each rail have its own dedicated transformer and so my SR7s have at most 1-2 rails:

 

"The SR7DR can only support 1 off 6A rail and 1 off 3A rail due to the 

thermal requirements of the four modules used in this configuration. The 

SR7MR4 can support 4 rails but with one transformer or two rails with 

two transformers. 4 rails with 4 transformers would only be possible for 

low current rails of up to 2A. Space is the main issue here. The SR9MR4 

chassis was good regarding size but I was less than happy with the 

structural integrity of the larger chassis using the chassis materials 

of the SR7 for the expanded width. I decided not to pursue this chassis 

style for this application and have designed a heavy-duty custom 

extrusion for the chassis sides capable of supporting up to 10mm 

aluminium plate for the base and front panel and 5mm plate for rear 

panel and top plate. This will be sized to allow 19” rack mounting by 

the addition of rack mounting wings to the extrusion or it can be free 

standing, with or without these rack wings, of course. This more 

substantial structure will allow up to 4 high current rails with 

individual transformers or a combination of high and low power rails 

with various transformer configurations."

 

If you have an order in place, it doesn't mean you couldn't modify it.

 

My rail 1 will be start at 19v @10A so that if I ever want to support a more power hungry PC I have the option.  That may limit me from the DR version since it appears to max at 6A.  If that's the case, do I opt for the DR now and eliminate the option to power a different PC?  He just started working on my build so if I make a change it has to be now. 

 

Here's the spec

 

SR7MR2XL
Rail 1 – 19v @ 10A adjustable down to 12v @ 5A initially set to 12v
Rail 2 – 4v to 14v @ 3A initially set to 9v

DC10FSXL with 2.5mm DC plug
DC6FSXL with 2.1mm DC plug

[Johnseye]

3 minutes ago, romaz said:

 

You might want to ask him for his advice.  You could opt for applying the DR to Rail 2 but to be honest, it may be with your server where the DR has the greatest impact.

 

The XL option is very worthwhile (impedance <1milliohm) and I have chosen this with each of my SR7s.  The problem is with the 2.1mm or 2.5mm DC plugs.  These are not low impedance plugs.  It would be ideal if you could apply the XL connector to your music server and your endpoints and I have thought about this but the XL connector is also very large and heavy.  There's no way, for example, to use this connector with something small like the microRendu.

 

I sent him an email and hopefully it's read before he's done with the build.  I could just go for the 12v DR now but what if I change the motherboard.  Future proofing is tough in this hobby.

 

Another benefit I get from the 19v rail is that I have a turntable and phono stage that each operate just under 19v.  I can power one of those when I'm not powering the server if I'd like.  The flexibility is huge given the cost.  I have a plan to upgrade the turntable and phono stage at some point, otherwise I would have gone with the 4 rail.  Those may get their own dedicated LPSU if what I choose allows for it.

 

Thanks for the advice and breathing some life into this thread again.  It gets stale without the exciting news you bring.

[Johnseye]

1 minute ago, romaz said:

 

You could ask him to do what he did for me with my DR.  Even though my DR is a single rail supply, it has 2 outputs.  It has a DR 12V output that can be adjusted down to 2V very easily with the turn of a small knob on a potentiometer within the SR7.   He also installed for me a 2nd output that outputs 19V but if I choose to use this 2nd output, I lose the benefits of double regulation because at 19V, I am now running only off the 1st stage regulator.  

 

You think this can be done with a 2 rail supply?  I still want to power my endpoint and server simultaneously from a single LPSU.

 

I'll pass this along to him and find out. Thanks!

[Johnseye]

14 minutes ago, tboooe said:

I sure wish Paul Hynes would update his website to provide more information.  I am sure he is getting flooded with inquiries.  Is there a better source for information other than his website?

 

Yes, I'll share it with you via pm in a bit.

[Johnseye]

Here are some reviews of Paul's if anyone's interested.  They are a bit dated.

 

http://hifipig.com/paul-hynes-sr3-power-supply/

http://hifipig.com/paul-hynes-ph5-power-supply/#more-15703

 

[Johnseye]

7 minutes ago, Forehaven said:

??  Private information?  On a manufacturers website?  So strange

 

It's a Word doc

[Johnseye]

1 minute ago, greenleo said:

Can you please pm me the word doc as well?

 

Sure when I get home in an hour. 

 

If anyone else wants it PM me directly. 

I'll also copy paste in here or create a new thread. 

[Johnseye]

1 hour ago, romaz said:

 

Here is what Paul will be posting on his new website.  Based on questions I had regarding an order for another DR SR7, he sent this to me just a few days ago:

 

 

No need for me to pm anyone now, Roy's covered it in this last post. Might want to consider pulling his account info.  While it's essentially one of his methods of payment and common knowledge to his customers, he may not want it on a public website.  I could be wrong though.

[Johnseye]

16 minutes ago, Superdad said:

 

And if our piece--with its galvanic isolation and USPCB for direct placement at the DAC--comes out equal or on top, will you guys complain if I triple the price to match at $990? 

 

We'll just buy more of them and you'll expand your customer base if you keep your price reasonable. 

[Johnseye]

2 hours ago, Bamber said:

Yes they are both Ultra with their own sCLK-EX clock module.  So I have 2 spare clocks in the sMS-200ultra and 3 spare in the tX-USBultra.  I had plans for these spare clocks but that is now on hold.  I need to upgrade my power supplies before deciding to go further with the SOtM chain.

 

In your opinion then, the sMS Ultra devices together don't sound better than the microRendu?  And when you say Recovery, what do you mean exactly? v2.5?

Did you send your sMS to @austinpop ?

[Johnseye]

36 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

 

In your opinion then, the sMS Ultra devices together don't sound better than the microRendu?  And when you say Recovery, what do you mean exactly? v2.5?

Did you send your sMS to @austinpop ?

 

Now I see the Recovery (RUR) is the Wyred4Sound device.  Wasn't aware of this reclocker.

[Johnseye]

1 hour ago, rickca said:

I am very intrigued.  I wonder how this would compare to the SOtM switch mod.

 

I'm also curious about the LP4 connector if you don't use an external LPS.  I think the i350-T2 just uses power from the PCIe slot.

 

Cost is $472 USD without shipping.  If you're using the sCLK board it would probably be cheaper and better synced with your other devices on that board.

 

1 hour ago, greenleo said:

Too bad that LPS-1 cannot be used.

 

If you're using an SR7 or other LPSU for your PC it shouldn't matter that much if at all.

[Johnseye]

5 hours ago, greenleo said:

SR7 is too far reaching for most, I suppose and the wait is killing.

 

Comparing the cost of a standard single rail SR7 with the other LPSU options out there, it's not that much more considering what you get.  It's probably the lowest noise producing power supply available.  Using such a low noise supply on the device that's doing all the heavy lifting is a good investment imo.  Throw on a second rail and you can get an even better supply for your endpoint.  Not only that, I can dual purpose mine so that it can power my turntable.  But wait there's more.  If you act now you can get a set of steak knives absolutely free!

 

Joking aside, the wait is long but I believe worth it.  There are very low cost temporary options available while you wait like the very low cost HDPlex PSU.  

 

My LPS-1 will then go to power the switch that sits between my NAS and PC.  I recently moved my NAS so the only thing between it and the PC is a low power switch.  I'm waiting for Roy's results on the mobo clock mod, and if it's spectacular (not just a slight improvement), I'll look at sending in a mobo and the switch for an sCLK mod to at least improve the most important clocks.

 

Other than that it's only the NAS and I'm surprised no one's discussed modifying that clock as it's the first to feed the music.  I wonder if getting the clock timing nailed on the NAS to start the chain with an sCLK, and synced with the last clock in the endpoint has an impact.  Just thinking off the top of my head, if the first and last clock are in sync with either the sCLK quasi master/slave, or true master clock then would all the clocks in between even matter?

[Johnseye]

6 hours ago, AmusedToD said:

 

I am convinced after your thorough comparisons. Thanks you so much for your time and effort!

 

I will definitely be sending my sms200Ultra for a switch mod. Could you please write down the exact model number of the Zyxel switch you were using in your test?

 

He used an 8 port Zyxel GS108Bv.