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

[Johnseye]

45 minutes ago, AmusedToD said:

Thanks!

 

There's also a 5 port version with slightly less power consumption at 2.5w.  It does have a plastic chassis.  The 8 port uses 3w and is released in a version 3 now.  It has a metal chassis.  Both have a 5v out.

[Johnseye]

8 hours ago, austinpop said:

2-day Ultra-vaganza Report

 

I see @limniscatehas already leaked some important results to the press. Typical lawyer move.  I, OTOH am a scientist™, so what follows is the summary report from our listening sessions. We conducted at least 14 distinct experiments, so I'll be reporting those here.

 

 

Would you please describe your testing/listening process?  For example, did one of you make unannounced changes while the other, with eyes closed listened, then took notes without discussing your findings?  Then did you swap positions and repeat in a different order?  Or was this just a hang out, listen and figure it out together scenario.  I don't discount your "scientific" method but am curious to how blind and bias proof you made this test.

[Johnseye]

Just now, limniscate said:

We did not blind test, but I've suggested that for the next time.  We did volume-match the microRendu versus the sMS-200 Ultra, but didn't make sure that everything else was volume-matched.  

 

We used 2-4 songs at about 1:30 each.  We would go back-and-forth between the components several times and discuss.  I'm a strong believer in confirmation bias, which is why I want to conduct single-blind testing next time.

 

That's a great point about volume matching because very often when people think they hear a sound improvement it's because it's louder.  Thus, the component itself isn't actually better, it's just louder.  But you know this, which is why you mentioned it.

 

Of course we can hear differences even when not blindfolded.  But it's so easy, especially when the differences are negligible, to think you hear something when it's either your belief or another factor like loudness or volume.  This makes testing much more cumbersome, but all the more satisfying when you know the results can't be easily attributed to external factors.  Regardless, I appreciate your efforts and they do impact everyone's opinions (and wallets) here at CA.

[Johnseye]

3 minutes ago, limniscate said:

 

@austinpopand I learned from our testing of the Ayre Codex versus the Schiit Yggy that volume-matching is key.  We both thought we heard differences between the DACs.  It turned out that one DAC was 1.5dB louder at the given preamp volume.  Once we volume-matched, we thought the DACs sounded the same.

 

That's all it takes.  1.5dB.

Interesting to note about the Codex and Yggy.  I was seriously contemplating auditioning the Yggy and maybe won't now.  I did my own comparison between the Codex and Audio Alchemy DDP-1 and as unscientific as it was, liked the DDP-1 much better.  But this isn't about those DACs so I won't go further.

[Johnseye]

3 hours ago, lmitche said:

Rick, 

 

Don't forget the benefit a clean power source brings to the mix.  I find it tough to believe that clocks are making most of the differences heard here. Substitution of switched regulators for linear regulators and ultra clean power makes a happy home for a clock regardless of quality.

 

Once power is clean it may be the goose-stepping of components that adds additional value. The teams comparison of the ISO Regen with it's un-synchronized and high quality crystal clock to the SOTM synthesised solution will be interesting in this regard.

 

If goose-stepping matters it will be interesting to find the underlying reason. With the asynchronous, buffered component architecture used in USB audio, goose-stepping should make no difference.

 

The clean power source reduces or eliminates noise and distortion from that noise.  The clock will correct any jitter related issues.

 

I was reading a little on distortion and came across this page.  I specifically like his comments on Type F.

 

http://www.parallelhomeaudio.net/TypesAudioDistortion.html

 

[Johnseye]

9 minutes ago, ElviaCaprice said:

Answer, there isn't.  Read Austinpop's reply above.

I'm thinking the separation of the clocking from the main component board is somehow adding isolation to the clocking which benefits it's accuracy. 

 

Meaning a master clock on only some devices sounds better because there is some kind of isolation taking place?  Changing the frequency has a positive impact or that the clock on a separate pcb has a positive impact?

[Johnseye]

7 hours ago, romaz said:

 I noticed Rajiv's comment on how he will be taking a break from investing further into his digital infrastructure and instead will look into putting more effort into the analog portion of his system.  Well, I have been doing the same and I just received a gigantic dose of perspective these past few days.  As some know, I drive a pair of custom made 95dB-efficient Omega Alnico monitors directly from my DAVE (using no separate speaker amplifier) and the resolution and transparency this provides when combined with my High Fidelity Cables speaker cables have been nothing short of breathtaking.   While DAVE's internal op-amp may not have the emotive coloration or bloom that some people desire in their amps, the 2 watts it outputs at 8 ohms are 2 of the cleanest, smoothest, quietest, yet explosively dynamic and detail-laden watts that any set of speakers will ever experience and because the Omega Alnicos have this natural inherent warmth and sultry texture, I have found the pairing to be mesmerizing.  Having attended numerous audio shows in the past year since moving to these speakers (including CES, AXPONA, RMAF, Newport, San Francisco, and most recently, Munich), I have had a chance to listen to many fine speaker setups from the likes of Magico, Focal, B&W, Wilson, Rockport, Boenicke, AudioNote UK, Voxativ, etc. and even in rooms that contained 7-figure setups, very few captivated me like my own system at home.  While my low power system is incapable of presenting Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture or Mahler's 8th in full scale like a pair of $180k Focal Grande Utopia EMs powered by a $200K pair of Naim Statement monoblock amplifiers, I found my system to exceed it in terms of fine detail, texture, delicacy and nuance.  Where many systems only sound their best played loud, my near field setup comes into its own at my preferred and much less fatiguing lower listening levels.  

 

The only speakers I have heard that have consistently piqued my interest have been the Voxativ 9.87s.  They are the creation of Holger Adler from Berlin and each time I have gone into the Voxativ room at these shows, I have often stayed for hours.  Well, I finally got a pair of Voxativs to evaluate in my system at home a few days ago and just as I feared, they blow my beloved Omegas away.  Not even close as far as resolution and transparency are concerned but what really sets them apart is this wonderful tonal richness and density that the Omegas are unable to convey.  I have yet to hear anything, regardless of price, that image as well as these speakers and at nearly 11 ohms of impedance and nearly 100dB efficiency, they are an easier load for my DAVE to drive directly and so the presentation is even more effortless and relaxed. .  

 

Going form $3k to $30k will have a big effect.  There are low priced gems out there like the Omegas but you're in a new ballpark.  If I could make a suggestion. You've already started listening to some good speakers.  Listen to a lot more and take them home. Side by side your final choices.  Don't focus on what your Chord can power in highly efficient speakers and dismiss using amps.  You might be surprised.  Finally, give Paradigm's new line, the Persona 9H a listen.  They're about $35k and are amazing.  Speakers have the biggest bang for the buck in sound quality improvement. Have fun picking a new pair.

[Johnseye]

10 hours ago, romaz said:

 

If you haven't figured out by now, I have a penchant for trying things and so I have had many things come through my house including speakers from B&W, Sonus Faber, KEF, Martin Logan, Totem and Trenner & Friedl just in the past 2 years.  The list of names is just as long with regards to subwoofers.

 

Nothing against the Paradigms but just not my cup of tea.  As I stated, at all the audio shows, I get to hear many things but I always find myself gravitating to the high-efficiency crossover-less widebanders that can be powered by 2-10 watt amps.  They just speak to me more.  In our home theater, we have a pair of Sonus Faber Cremonas powered by a 300W multichannel Classe amp and augmented by JL Audio subs.  They sound great...for movies, but given the choice, when listening to music for enjoyment, I find myself almost always gravitating to my near field setup.

 

I'm not against using other amplification having owned or demo'd a variety of tube and transistor amps and preamps over the years.  With SETs, I generally prefer the delicacy of smaller tubes (45s and especially 2A3s) as opposed to the larger tubes (300Bs, 845s, 211s).  With transistor amps, the 25W First Watt J2 by Nelson Pass is my favorite.  However, none of them can do what my Chord DAVE can do when powering speakers directly.  To borrow your own phrase, you might be surprised.

 

Similarly I've owned, still have or have auditioned most of those speakers. I recently went through a fun and lengthy speaker search. I had not been a fan of Paradigm in the past and I'm not that impressed with their other current lines, except the Personas. They are completely different. Very detailed, airy and dimensional. I'd like to hear your opinion of them if you ever get a chance. 

 

My multichannel system is similar. I tried using the JLs with my 2 channel but really need the CR-1 to do it well. My Personas have excellent bass, but I know to get those lower frequencies I'd need to run 2.1.

 

I believe the DAVE is probably one of the best DACs out there right now. I know it would surprise me, but I'm going to wait for Chord's next generation DAC.  The amp is intriguing but I'm more than happy with the AHB2. 

[Johnseye]

On 7/2/2017 at 7:03 PM, mozes said:

I have made the decision a while back to go USB only in my system for simplicity reasons and not because I know it is superior to ethernet. I always felt that there maybe some compromise there because I always read about how great the performance of SMS-200 and microrendu.  I am happy that you also found that USB has a great potential to sound awesome and that we in the USB camp can have the same if not surpass the SQ of a hybrid ethernet/USB chain. Of course, not all USB chains are created equal. In my system and after a lot of trials I found that the best SQ is this chain:

Nimitra sever (VR Mini)>IR(LPS-1)>tX-USBultra(Nikola flagship LPS)>Brooklyn (VR Mini)

 

On 7/2/2017 at 6:36 PM, romaz said:

Ultimately, what this means is that I have decided to abandon the AOIP route and go straight USB.  Not only is it simpler but there are other advantages.  It's possible some of the improved SQ I am hearing compared against the sMS-200ultra is due to Chord's ASIO driver in Windows being superior to the stock sound driver in Linux that is used by all AOIP devices like the mR or sMS-200.  For sure, I can now play even my resource-intensive DSD256 files without any dropouts, something that was never possible with either my mR or sMS-200.  I also now have the ability to go to go to Core mode with Windows Server 2016 without having to worry about losing my bridged LAN connection.  

 

So you both are abandoning the ethernet endpoint sms-200 or mR solution to go straight from your PCs via USB to a reclocker like the IR or tX?  Just to be clear, you're finding that once a high quality power source is feeding your devices, filtration through copper or fiber ethernet has no meaningful impact?

[Johnseye]

1 minute ago, mozes said:

Just to clarify, I have always been a USB only guy and I can't imagine how ethernet may sound better. 

 

Ok, so you've never tried a mR or sms-200?

[Johnseye]

Just now, mozes said:

No

 

Good to know.  Thanks.

[Johnseye]

5 hours ago, lmitche said:

Rajiv, there is if course the direct model with a single machine, local drives, and some combo of ISO Regen / txUSBUltra.

 

My dac chain is sounding splendid with one lps-1, no switch, and the ISO Regen with two USPCBs.

 

22 minutes ago, ElviaCaprice said:

Yes, Larry, I have confirmed what you found out.  I think this configuration gives the biggest bang for the buck.  So good in fact, I have no further desire to explore the SoTM Ultra components/clocking.  

I will complacently observe others findings at a distance, please continue.  Good work guys!

 

 

And here we come full circle.  A simple solution without a chain of clocks, master clock, endpoints, or FMCs.  One high quality re-clocking device as direct as possible from the server to the DAC.  I was also surprised to hear Roy going back to a similar solution.  This is refreshing to say the least, and it just makes the most logical sense.

 

Thanks to everyone who has put their time, effort and money into buying and experimenting with these devices.

[Johnseye]

1 minute ago, austinpop said:

 

 

 

 

Folks, I have always made it clear I have nothing against the direct USB approach, it's just not something I have ever dabbled in. Ultimately, let's remember that the whole point of this exercise is the pursuit of maximum listening pleasure. I have always felt a certain rightness to the endpoint architecture, which is why I pursued it. I've never felt it was the only, or even the best way to achieve the highest SQ.

 

Also, for those citing lower costs as a potential reason to try the direct USB route, please recall that Roy's rationale for switching from endpoints was based on his expectation of achieving further SQ improvements in:

• replacing the stock USB outputs of his server with the SOtM tX-USBexp card
• modding this card with sCLK-EX
• modding his DFI motherboard
• And in addition, his careful build of the system using:
  • SR7 power supplies
  • Pachanko cables etc.

So you have to pay the piper, no matter what you do.

 

I was thinking of what it would take for me to try a direct USB experiment. The only computers I have at my disposal are:

1. a stock Dell XPS 8700 desktop that runs my Roon Core, and the network bridge
2. Macbook Pro laptop

I have no LPSes to power these.

 

Even if I moved one of these close enough to my DAC to use a USB cable, would there even be value to trying this experiment:

• Dell desktop or MBP (vanilla) > ISO-Regen (LPS-1) > tX-USBultra (LPS-1)?

 

In another couple weeks I'll have my SR7 powering my server as well as another device (IR or endpoint).  I'll have an sMS-200, although not the Ultra, and possibly an mR if I don't sell it first.  I will also have an ISO Regen with a couple USPCBs.   An LPS-1 will power an unmodded switch between the NAS and server.  Running endpoint vs direct USB comparison tests with these devices will be my end game and while someone may beat me to it, I'll share my subjective listening experiences, conducted as blindly as possible.

[Johnseye]

On 4/11/2017 at 0:40 AM, Johnseye said:

 

Yes this explains what we're all chasing in our playback chains. Thank you @JohnSwenson

 

One interesting piece of information makes me question whether Intel's new Optane will help with reducing memory access noise. 

 

"A major part in this memory access noise is what is called cache performance. Every processor includes a “cache memory”, this is memory in the processor which operates in sort of a shadow mode. Once the processor accesses a particular memory location, it stores that data in the cache, so the next time it tries to get that location, it doesn’t have to access main memory. There is only a fairly small amount of cache memory available, so an access does not always get the value from cache, this is called a cache miss. Cache is used for both instructions and data.

A program can influence the cache performance in many ways. One of the easiest to understand is just plain size of code. If the main loop of a program is small enough to fit entirely in cache, the program doesn’t have to do any main memory accesses for its instructions."

 

17 minutes ago, Dev said:

 

I can't agree more on stressing the importance on clean power. Much of the stock devices can improve a lot by feeding them with good and stable power, without which they may be under-performing.

 

Can you elaborate on the recent innovation from Intel ? What are you referring to in terms of SQ improvements on the storage solution ? Something along the lines of M.2, SSD, Sata devices ?

 

5 minutes ago, lmitche said:

Here you go:

 

 

 

Additionally, in this post I quoted something from this thread I posted back in April about Optane and it possibly reducing memory access noise.

[Johnseye]

3 minutes ago, Dev said:

 

I failed to understand this part - the memory access is the first place the OS will seek, when it faults it loads pages from the secondary storage back to the main memory. Are you saying that the Optane is acting as the primary memory ? If so, then IMO, its a big hammer. Note, I have yet to read up on the Optane tech. Maybe we should take this up on the Optane thread instead of polluting this one... 

 

That's a quote from @JohnSwenson's article Q&A with John Swenson. Part 3: How bit-perfect software can affect sound.  Take a look at his article and how Optane works for the correlation.  We can further discuss this in Larry's Optane post.

[Johnseye]

19 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

These are all uncharted waters. It is tempting to see patterns and postulate theories, but I would say we are still at the stage of empirical observations.

 

I have certainly heard the benefit of what I've affectionately termed a "clockchain," a  sequence of reclockings/regeneration using a clock(s) of extremely high quality. However, it would be premature to conclude things like "synchronized clocks between the sms-200 and ethernet switch reduces timing and bit errors." The effect is clearly audible, but certainly not well understood.

 

Also, I want to clarify that I will not say a priori that the Ultrarendu will sound better or worse than anything. It is certainly likely that the UR+IR combo will produce excellent SQ. I am looking forward to the reports once they come in comparing this with the SOtM stack. 

 

Ain't competition great!

 

Oh, and if someone wants to send me an Ultrarendu to test...

 

It certainly is uncharted waters considering many of the companies selling music server hardware aren't considering much of what we're testing here.  It's great that folks like Uptone, sotm and sonore are paying attention and helping to lead the way.

 

Everyone's needs and devices are different.  I personally jumped on the endpoint bandwagon not because I wanted my server in another room, but because of what I heard by filtering the noise out through ethernet.  As I clean up my power through better LPSUs that issue is being eliminated.  What needs to be compared when the power is clean is the ethernet approach to a straight USB connection.  As I mentioned before I can do it with a standard endpoint, but not with an "ultra" endpoint or SCLK chain.  Roy's experiments will tell us a lot as he's put extraordinary efforts into cleaning up his power and addressing every possible conceivable variable, at least for the moment.

[Johnseye]

5 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

So many reasons!

1. Aesthetically and for my soul, I want my listening experience to be about communing with the music, sitting in my recliner, and navigating my library with a phone or tablet. This is achievable now with direct attach, but not a few years ago.
2. Architecturally (computer/network) - I find the distributed renderer/endpoint approach more elegant
3. Yes, I use Roon now. Previously, I used MinimServer.
4. I believe in only allowing low noise componentry close to my audio gear. I know with NUCs and bespoke audio computers, this is no  longer a show stopper, but for many years, this was the conventional wisdom.
5. Finally, and this is the most practical reason of all - all of the above has led me to invest my funds disproportionately towards distributed components, and I have relied on stock cheap computers, placed far away from the audio gear, for the music serving. 
6. For me to shift gears now would require me to spend considerable sums to achieve what proponents of the direct attach approach already have in their music players.

 

Respectfully, investing less than $1k on a dedicated,  fanless, low power, small server would eliminate all of those reasons. You've already made an investment in several components which makes it emotionally hard to walk away from, but what would you do if you learned a direct USB connection resulted in superior sound quality? You're not as locked in as you think. 

 

I'm not trying to talk you out of or into anything. Please don't misunderstanding me. Just being a friend and pointing out there are many paths to your audio nirvana. 

 

I spent over $1k on two endpoints I may not use and that have been upgraded by their manufacturers in less than 6 months. I can only hope my $3k SR7 lasts a few years. I've tried to walk and talk a cautionary path but spent myself into some holes as well. But in the end I'm having fun doing it. 

[Johnseye]

15 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

 

OK guys - got it. MBP bad. ✓

 

Now let's wait for someone who has a legitimately optimized direct USB setup compare against an Ultra trifecta chain.

 

Clearly won't be me! 

 

If you want to send me your ultra trifecta I'll test once the SR7 and IR come in at the end of the month/beginning of Aug.  I won't upgrade my sms-200 until I hear the IR direct, depending on how that goes.  I just sold my mR so that's now out of the equation.

[Johnseye]

3 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

Sorry - no can do. Due to the hardwired clock cables, I'm paranoid about how much physical stress it can tolerate in shipping.

 

In fact, I am getting close to biting the bullet and just sending it back to SOtM to be re-done using the SMB terminations, so I can use detachable Digikey clock cables. At that time I'll probably just spring for them to add a master clock connector for future proofing.

 

I wonder how long until their next Ultra or Super Ultra model.  Any idea on the life cycle of USB clocks?

[Johnseye]

You think we go to extremes.  Look what this guy did to get good power.

 

 

[Johnseye]

1 hour ago, limniscate said:

No need since I'm also getting a SR7DRMR2XL.  I ordered mine a few days after you ordered yours.

 

Great, so you'll do the direct USB to a qualified (not MBP..sorry Rajiv) server comparison with the sotm rig?

[Johnseye]

17 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

How would you define this? What "qualified server" is a fair comparison with an endpoint-based trifecta?

 

Something like @mozes's VR Mini-powered Nimitra server? Or @lmitche's optimizations? It's a moving target.

 

I've said it before - the only one on this thread who is truly spanning both worlds is @romaz, and I for one, am content to enjoy my setup until he returns with a report of his explorations.

 

 

 

No offense was intended.  Roy is the closest to achieving this, but by throwing a lot of cash at some experimentation.  Great for him, but many of us don't have that much disposable cash for trial and error.  I already discussed previously what I invested in only a few months and look what's changed.  Moving target it is.

 

I think that first off it needs to be a device that can be powered by a LPSU.  Being able to power the server cleanly is critical.  To keep the cost down, and to limit unnecessary components, it should be as simple as possible.  No fans anywhere. The ability to use a custom USB card.  A next step would be what Roy is doing with replacing mobo components, including clocks.  Then ensuring every possible component or service not applicable is disabled.  Using AO and/or Fidelizer to assist.  Process Lasso to prioritize the playback or upsampling application.

 

That would be a start.  I'm sure we could go further with simplifying the board to something a bit more powerful than an mR or sMS but only having the needed components physically present.  Once someone builds this, and they are already starting to in limited ways, it will be a game changer (no, the Nimitra and SMG are not there yet).  It's what I've been looking for since getting into stored digital audio and what I try to build on my own with the limited resources I can get.  It really comes down to someone manufacturing a mobo with high quality audiophile components specific to that need.

[Johnseye]

47 minutes ago, lmitche said:

Remember what the wise man said, "We are all bozos on this bus!"

 

[Johnseye]

14 hours ago, seeteeyou said:

Interesting discovery?

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/32132-allo-sparky-usbridge/?page=3#comment-694978

 

 

Doubt it.  Sadly we have about 3 or 4 conflicting opinions on what sounds better depending on the device or placement order of the device.  Consensus would lead us to a valid conclusion.  Because there is none yet I can't see any conclusion. 

[Johnseye]

6 hours ago, austinpop said:

Another 50 hours on the ISO-R (up to about 170 hours), and I feel it continues to improve even at this stage of burn-in. I've spent another long session this evening with another album I keep coming back to of late:

 

 

I've really run out of superlatives. I find myself sitting down for a few minutes and spending hours!

 

I did want to mention a couple of tweaks that I think have finally banished the last remnants of the slightly thin SOtM house sound that the ISO-Regen didn't quite mitigate.

• Suppress the noise backwash from the Meanwell energizing supplies - I have 3 of these, remember!
  • Put all of these on a PS Audio Dectet strip and attach them to a B&K 1604A isolation transformer
  • Replace the Meanwell power cords with modestly upgraded cords - Pangea AC-14SE MkII
  • Both of the above contributed to a blacker background, and sounds more relaxed and smooth
• Swap the balanced interconnects from the DAC to the amp. I've been enjoying the Ayre Signature's for quite a while now, but I happened to pick up a pair of really old (10+ years at least) Cardas Golden Cross cables from a friend.
  • Man, these just vanquished the last trace of thinness!
  • This is an amazing cable, as it should be for something that retailed for more than $1k in the day. 

In the next day or two, we should be doing another listening session at Eric's, so will report on that soon. I suspect many folks will want to know how this combo sounds:

• modded switch > sMS-200ultra > ISO-Regen > SU-1

More soon.

 

Good stuff Rajiv.  Lots of changes going on.  When I hear you say "finally banished the last remnants of the slightly thin SOtM house sound" and "these just vanquished the last trace of thinness" I think to myself, what are we really trying to achieve with these devices?  If we think in painting terms, are we just painting different shades or colors of the music to achieve a sound that is more pleasing to our ears?

 

What is each reviewers ultimate goal when listening to these devices?  Are we looking to reduce noise as much as possible, thus revealing as much of the music as possible, are we looking for a sound that most closely represents live or an analog sourced recording, or are we looking for a sound that is most pleasing to our ear and does that qualification change?

 

There are certain components that contribute to a thin sound.  Solid state vs tube in the pre or amp is one.  Cable material is another.  And I wonder how you came to the conclusion that SOtM products sound thin because I've come to that same conclusion myself.  What is your point of reference in which a device sounds fatter that you are measuring against?  I found that the microRendu sounded fatter.  However the sms-200 was slightly clearer while also sounding thinner at the same time.  I think it may be hard to get one without the other, but I chose thin and clear vs. fat and clouded.  Analog music such as that from vinyl is one exception.  I think that can be clear and fat.  Almost buttery, but it's also noisy.  When I listen to music that's my reference point.  I can hear the difference between an analog sourced piece of vinyl and a digital sourced.  It's not hard, one sounds thinner than the other.  My end goal is to hear digital music as clearly as possible, with as little extraneous noise as possible, providing a clean, transparent, multi dimensional image that is buttery like analog.  That's my point of reference and critical in understanding why I think a device, a musical source or a setting may sound better than another.  It's the compass that guides my audio decisions.