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

[austinpop]

1 hour ago, Bricki said:

Does anyone know how to resolve an issue with my audiolinux nuc running roon bridge but not appearing in roon when I have my core on audiolinux as well? If I run my core on sonicorbitor then I can see it and it works fine but then I boot my sonicTransporter into audiolinux and I can't find my roon bridge NUC. 

 

I am using different usb sticks to boot from (for server and bridge).

 

Anyone else had this problem? 

 

I've not had this issue. So both boxes (SO and NUC) are booted up into audiolinux? Type ip address show on each, and verify that their address, subnet, gateway, and DNS settings are correct.

 

It probably wouldn't hurt to set each to have a unique hostname. By default, all audiolinux machines come up with hostname audiolinux. You can set the hostnames via:

• hostname audiolinux-NUC
• hostname audiolinux-SO

If you're booted into ramroot, make sure to insert the USB stick back and do a ramsave.

[Dev]

18 minutes ago, austinpop said:

The Roon Device for the squeezelite instance allows a max sample rate of PCM 192. I don't know if this is a hard limit set by Roon, of if there is any way to bump that up to PCM 384k.

 

Can you check if DSD is also limited to dsd64 if your DAC supported DSD ?

[austinpop]

4 minutes ago, Dev said:

 

Can you check if DSD is also limited to dsd64 if your DAC supported DSD ?

 

Yes. DSD limited to 64.

[Bricki]

11 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

I've not had this issue. So both boxes (SO and NUC) are booted up into audiolinux? Type ip address show on each, and verify that their address, subnet, gateway, and DNS settings are correct.

 

It probably wouldn't hurt to set each to have a unique hostname. By default, all audiolinux machines come up with hostname audiolinux. You can set the hostnames via:

• hostname audiolinux-NUC
• hostname audiolinux-SO

If you're booted into ramroot, make sure to insert the USB stick back and do a ramsave.

OK thanks heaps for this I will see if this works ?

[MrUnderhill]

5 hours ago, greenleo said:

A "brief" report on running AL on two endpoints.

........

 

3. My end-game setup has come.  To be able to rival a mid price range (about $3000 ten years ago for only the speakers) speaker system by HP was my dream.  I can live happily with the current system for the rest of my life.  No kidding.

 

.......

 

Regards.

I sent these comments as emails to a fellow forum member last night:

 

The sound quality is brilliant. It is not just the detail, it is the tone I love. A combination of the best of Sonore and SOtM, and better than dCS I think.

The memory change has made the base fatter but in no way slower, and you can hear even further into the mix.

.....and due to that tone it is relaxing to listen to.

 

I tell you, I am struggling to think of any changes that I would want to make to my system ?

 

M

[MrUnderhill]

4 hours ago, davide256 said:

Has anyone made the transition to AL server + NUC AL endpoint? Trying to understand if NUC AL endpoint is significantly additive for improvement to the change AL server makes or if the microRendu is fine to stick with.

Hi Dave,

 

Yes. I amd running LMS AL with my files on USB sticks + NUC AL.

 

The NUC makes a larger contribution in my system, but the LMS AL gives a nice uptick.

 

M

[LTG2010]

2 hours ago, Dev said:

NUC8i7BEH update: 

I don't think its suitable as a DSD upsampling machine you'll need some serious power and these CPU's are mobile units., its better as a roon server etc with the smaller unit as the renderer. You could try the HQP settings without upsampling bit perfect ( some users prefer that) and the the smaller NUC as a networkaudio renderer. You could also test it as a renderer with your PC as server it may outperform the smaller NUC, that comparison would be very useful.

[asdf1000]

2 hours ago, LTG2010 said:

I don't think its suitable as a DSD upsampling machine you'll need some serious power and these CPU's are mobile units.

 

The NUC8i7BEH uses an  i7-8559U CPU.

 

My i7-7700HQ handles HQPe up-sampling to DSD512 (poly-sinc-xtr-lp-2s). 

 

There's a chance the  i7-8559U CPU may also...

 

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-8559U-vs-Intel-Core-i7-7700HQ/m543591vsm211019

 

[LTG2010]

8 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

There's a chance the  i7-8559U CPU may also...

Its a mobile processor and Dev's was struggling with with DSD 256 (The processor was throttling and fan at Full speed) Even with a Large Heatsink I'm not so sure of DSD512.

[asdf1000]

2 minutes ago, LTG2010 said:

Its a mobile processor and Dev's was struggling with with DSD 256 (The processor was throttling and fan at Full speed) Even with a Large Heatsink I'm not so sure of DSD512.

 

@Dev failed with 2s or non-2s filter variants?

 

It looks to be a quicker CPU than mine (see above link).. mine handles 2s variants to DSD512. 

 

 

 

[LTG2010]

4 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

It looks to be a quicker CPU than mine (see above link).. mine handles 2s variants to DSD512. 

Maybe with a big heatsink and in Turbo mode ? if it does I'm definitely getting one

[rickca]

59 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

@Dev failed with 2s or non-2s filter variants?

He says here that he was using xtr-mp

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/30376-a-novel-way-to-massively-improve-the-sq-of-computer-audio-streaming/?do=findComment&comment=898557

 

[asdf1000]

6 minutes ago, rickca said:

He says here that he was using xtr-mp

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/30376-a-novel-way-to-massively-improve-the-sq-of-computer-audio-streaming/?do=findComment&comment=898557

 

 

No mention of 2s variants, so he's up against the fan blowing hard.

[lmitche]

5 hours ago, MrUnderhill said:

I tell you, I am struggling to think of any changes that I would want to make to my system 

?

For those of you that have not yet listened to a NUC/AL setup, please read the words above. The NUC takes SQ to a new level, a level where the desire to listen to music far outweighs the desire to continue tweaking. This is what I meant by end game.

 

Yes, tweaks still matter, but in a context where the benefits are incrementally smaller on a relative basis. Like MrUnderhill, I am much less motivated to experiment.

 

Larry

[beerandmusic]

10 minutes ago, lmitche said:

For those of you that have not yet listened to a NUC/AL setup, please read the words above. The NUC takes SQ to a new level, a level where the desire to listen to music far outweighs the desire to continue tweaking. This is what I meant by end game.

 

Yes, tweaks still matter, but in a context where the benefits are incrementally smaller on a relative basis. Like MrUnderhill, I am much less motivated to experiment.

 

Larry

 

Please clarify....

Why wouldn't different fanless i5 hardware sound just as good...what does the NUC have to do with it?

[beerandmusic]

5 hours ago, MrUnderhill said:

Hi Dave,

 

Yes. I amd running LMS AL with my files on USB sticks + NUC AL.

 

The NUC makes a larger contribution in my system, but the LMS AL gives a nice uptick.

 

M

why not put the AL on SSD...boot is so slow on usb.  You couldn't possibly think loading from usb or ssd will make a difference in perf?

[mourip]

6 hours ago, austinpop said:

 

I've not had this issue. So both boxes (SO and NUC) are booted up into audiolinux? Type ip address show on each, and verify that their address, subnet, gateway, and DNS settings are correct.

 

It probably wouldn't hurt to set each to have a unique hostname. By default, all audiolinux machines come up with hostname audiolinux. You can set the hostnames via:

• hostname audiolinux-NUC
• hostname audiolinux-SO

If you're booted into ramroot, make sure to insert the USB stick back and do a ramsave.

 

I am having a similar problem with adding a second Roon Bridge running Audiolinux on a new NUC.

 

Thanks to Piero, who provided detailed help for the AL command line , I was successful in giving both PC’s unique hostnames: audiolinux1 and audiolinux2. The symptoms have now changed and are even more baffling. I still can only have one device up at a time. In the Roon control app on my desktop PC which ever PC comes up first shows as available but with the IP of the other device and the Roon name(not Linux hostname) of the opposite one. This is hard to really describe well but Roon is definitely confused by having both Audiolinux devices up at the same time, even with different hostnames. I have rebooted Roon Core(it runs on a third PC) but this did not help. Even worse, when I try to choose the one device that it does recognize it says “enabling” but never completes until I turn off the other bridge and reboot Roon Core. This is repeatable. Turning off one of the devices makes things work again and the other device shows up properly again.

 

I have a Windows application that scans all devices on my network. Both AudioLinux bridge boxes show up with the expected IP addresses and if I ping by hostname the correct IP comes up for each.

 

Has anyone successfully made two incidences of Audiolinux running Roon Bridge work on the same network?

 

I love the sound of AL and really want this to work...
 

 

[davide256]

I'm not finding the NUC7CJYH in stock anywhere, other than at boutique (list price) NUC dealers. Any good alternatives for AL endpoint that would run well off an LPS 1.2?

 

 

[davide256]

42 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

why not put the AL on SSD...boot is so slow on usb.  You couldn't possibly think loading from usb or ssd will make a difference in perf?

Please confirm that you understand all software has to load into RAM to execute and that AL allows you to load itself entirely into RAM so that

no interruptions/delays in OS execution occur when running AL in RAM other than read of music off disk.

 

Back in DOS/386 days I played a game called Red Baron online... latency was a real killer and I was always missing my target/ being shot down by others.

Then I figured out how to load the game on ramdisk, tables were reversed. RAM is always faster than HD/SSD/ USB.

[lmitche]

41 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

Please clarify....

Why wouldn't different fanless i5 hardware sound just as good...what does the NUC have to do with it?

B&M, yes to be clear certain configurations of an Intel fanless i5 machine may indeed sound just as good. A 1980 vintage Commodore 64 may sound good as well. I don't know as I haven't listened and compared these as I don't have the time to do so.

 

 

[bit01]

33 minutes ago, davide256 said:

I'm not finding the NUC7CJYH in stock anywhere, other than at boutique (list price) NUC dealers. Any good alternatives for AL endpoint that would run well off an LPS 1.2?

 

 

I had the same trouble for weeks - ended up ordering the Pentium NUC (NUC7PJYH) from B&H Photo, currently in stock.

[beerandmusic]

57 minutes ago, lmitche said:

B&M, yes to be clear certain configurations of an Intel fanless i5 machine may indeed sound just as good.

I have a slew of ASUS vm60's i5's laying around here....I like them better than nuc's because i like the size and accessiblity better.  They also have spdif and sdslot....I am always swapping hd's in and out, and they have an easy slide off cover....everytime i find them on ebay for around $150 or less (w/i5 &incl hd&mem) i buy one, and i have about 6 or 7 of them here now....just outbid on an i3 w/8gb mem for $120

[beerandmusic]

40 minutes ago, davide256 said:

Please confirm that you understand all software has to load into RAM to execute and that AL allows you to load itself entirely into RAM so that

no interruptions/delays in OS execution occur when running AL in RAM other than read of music off disk.

 

I read that, and do plan on trying that as well, but still would be faster to boot from ssd.

 

I also am curious...have you tried, comparing playing from local ssd as compared to network?

Your configuration is nas->nuc (al in ram)->usb->dac?

[davide256]

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

I read that, and do plan on trying that as well, but still would be faster to boot from ssd.

 

I also am curious...have you tried, comparing playing from local ssd as compared to network?

Your configuration is nas->nuc (al in ram)->usb->dac?

AL PC server> microrendu>USB>DAC

1) boot time is irrelevant... where the OS resides after boot determines  execution speed. Execution of OS off SSD/USB moves at glacial speed compared to execution of code already in RAM, its directly accessible by CPU. Anything not in RAM  moves at a slower speed, has to be put in RAM before the CPU can access.

2)  I haven't wanted to throw money at quality power supplies for server since it didn't help in network streaming  testing. Consequently any USB out from my PC sounds bad

direct to DAC. YMMV for DAC direct if you have made the PS investment, the Innuos servers proved that to me.

[beerandmusic]

1 minute ago, davide256 said:

AL PC server> microrendu>USB>DAC

1) boot time is irrelevant... where the OS resides after boot determines  execution speed. Execution of OS off SSD/USB moves at glacial speed compared to execution of code already in RAM, its directly accessible by CPU. Anything not in RAM  moves at a slower speed, has to be put in RAM before the CPU can access.

2)  I haven't wanted to throw money at quality power supplies for server since it didn't help in network streaming  testing. Consequently any USB out from my PC sounds bad

direct to DAC. YMMV if you have made the PS investment, the Innuos servers proved that to me.

1) I understand all that, my point was why boot from usb instead of ssd.

 

So your music files are on an internal drive on the AL PC server, and that is where you are finding a vast improvement?  What was your previous configuration?  I would think that NAS -> rendu would be comparable?