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

[seeteeyou]

IMHO it's also quite interesting to notice yet another "unwritten rule" that sponsors could openly "make fun of" non-sponsors (i.e. competitors) outside sponsored forums

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30376-a-novel-way-to-massively-improve-the-sq-of-computer-audio-streaming/?page=437&tab=comments#comment-896822

 

One more shining example

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30376-a-novel-way-to-massively-improve-the-sq-of-computer-audio-streaming/?page=361&tab=comments#comment-860498

Quote

Oops John, no hard drives in ultraRendu or sMS-200ultra, though the latter allows for hanging a USB drive off the extra port (yuck).

 

It's also nice to keep commenting on the OCXO inside another competitor's products while the devil is in the details

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/55202-article-quick-take-the-linear-solution-ds-1-network-streamer/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-914669

 

Sometimes I just found it so much fun to read certain impressions but we couldn't really tell if some sorta "permanent" loaners were involved since I was struggling to find any kinda disclosures

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/30376-a-novel-way-to-massively-improve-the-sq-of-computer-audio-streaming/?page=412&tab=comments#comment-892714

[Geir-T]

23 minutes ago, Superdad said:

 

Terje:

You ought to disclose in your signature that you are a member of the trade. That is a rule on this web site.

 

And the fact that you are also a reseller of SOtM products brings questions of bias.  http://www.andervikaudio.no/andre-produkter/

 

By the way, plenty of other comparisons between the SOtM sPS-500 and the UpTone UltraCap LPS-1.2 have been made and published--here in this thread and elsewhere--with quite the opposite results.  So we invite readers to try for themselves.

 

Regards,

--Alex C.

I can confirm the listening impressions as reported by andervt on the NUCPJYH/Akasa fanless vs. SOTM-SMS-200 Ultra Neo  > tx-USBultra and LPS 1.2 vs. SPS-500. I am the one initiating this comparison since I am the owner of the NUC and the LPS 1.2 used in the test. 

 

I have been a long time lurker on this thread and have used the listening impressions reported here to decide what changes to apply in my own system. This has led to several changes over the past couple of years and the latest one change was to replace my Microrendu with a NUCPJYH built into an Akasa fanless case. This led to a clear improvement in my system and I decided to find out how this compared to the SOtM-SMS-200 Ultra Neo  & tx-USBultra. Based on the findings reported here, I expected the NUC alternative to be better, but to my surprise I found the opposite to be the case.

 

The following equipment were used in the test:

Paul Pang server full of the OCXO stuff running Roon Core

SOtM sNH-10G w/sCLK-EX

SOtM-SMS-200 Ultra Neo  & tx-USBultra powered by SPS500's

Mola Mola Tambaqui DAC 

Mola Mola Kaluga monoblocks

Respons Magna Musicum loudpeakers

Paul Pang cat 6 cables

Spiral Groove Strange Attractors under ALL boxes

More Furutech equipment than I can ever afford

Dedicated listening room with practically no remaining surface left acoustically untreated. 

 

A couple of the albums used for testing: Doug MacLeoud There's a Time (24 bit/Reference Recordings), Marta Gomez Entre Cada Palabra (24 bit). 

 

The SOtM-SMS-200 Ultra Neo  & tx-USBultra powered by SPS500's w/ SOtM silver DC cable were first swapped out for the NUC/Akasa/LPS 1.2/Ghent Neotech (JSSG360) cable (LPS 1.2 powered by SPS500)

 

It became evident that the NUC alternative lacks some definition in the bass region compared to the SOtM kit. Localization of instruments is also less precise in the NUC and the soundstage is smaller especially in width. Resolution in the highs is reduced with resulting less air and transparency. The difference was not subltle in this system.

 

Based on this result I wanted to find out how much of the difference came from the power supply of the NUC, so we swapped out the LPS 1.2 with the SPS500. In short the difference between the NUC and the SOtM rig was cut in half. The SPS500 improved all qualities of the sound. (Please note that power cables and DC cables used for the SPS500 are 2-3 X cost of the SPS500 itself, so result is not with stock cables)

 

A third finding of the test was that the NUC benefited from Spiral Groove Strange Attractors under its belly. It resulted in a slightly blacker background and also a slight improvement in resolution.

 

Since the first two findings are not in accordance with the impression I get when reading through this thread, I think it is of importance to report it.  

 

I plan to test the SPS500 replacing the LPS 1.2 in my own (more modest) system in the near future to see if I end up at the same conclusion or not. I am also curious about how the SR4 compares, but I guess I need to buy one to be able to find out. There are no Paul Hynes shops around here.

 

 

 

[mikicasellas]

2 hours ago, Lebouwsky said:

My motherboard is currently powered by a Sotm sps500 through Ghent’s Canare starquad JSSG360 dc cable with very good results. My experiences with Ghent are very positive, highly recommanded

Yes they are very good, i have the one to connect the ISO REGEN to LPS-1 with also great results

 

Has anyone in the forum heard how better in terms of performance do the ones with the JSSG360 compared with the standard Canare 4S6 DC cable without JSSG360?:

 

DC-J01 Teflon Silver-Plated Star Quad DC(JSSG360) Cable

DC-GAC4 Gotham GAC-4/1 11301 UltraPro Star Quad DC(JSSG360) Cable

DC-7N16C Neotech UPOCC 7N Copper 16AWG DC(JSSG360) Cable

[elan120]

12 minutes ago, mikicasellas said:

Yes they are very good, i have the one to connect the ISO REGEN to LPS-1 with also great results

 

Has anyone in the forum heard how better in terms of performance do the ones with the JSSG360 compared with the standard Canare 4S6 DC cable without JSSG360?:

 

DC-J01 Teflon Silver-Plated Star Quad DC(JSSG360) Cable

DC-GAC4 Gotham GAC-4/1 11301 UltraPro Star Quad DC(JSSG360) Cable

DC-7N16C Neotech UPOCC 7N Copper 16AWG DC(JSSG360) Cable

I don't have direct comparison experience between standard Canare 4S6 DC cable with and without JSSG360 treatment, but when I replaced all my standard Canare 4S6 DC cable (8~10 cables) with Gotham DC cables, the SQ improvement is very noticeable and to my liking.  Please note, I was replacing one at a time, and overall improvement is additive.  However, I have no experience with the other 2 cables on your list though.

[Johnseye]

2 hours ago, auricgoldfinger said:

 

I thought that review seemed suspicious based not only on the findings but also on how it was written.

 

2 hours ago, andervt said:

Thank you Superdad, I was not aware that there was a rule for telling that I was a member of the trade, but this seems like a good rule.

 

There have been other comparisons with opposite results regarding Sotm and LPS powersupplyes, and that is the reason for me writing this. I have tested the LPS-1 one time and the LPS-1.2 two times. And the SPS-500 has been the better power without doubt in my tests. My friend who own the LPS power I tested also agree in what i wrote. I think it would be wrong of me to not enlighten auphile that there are different experiences, and in this way encourage to test themselves.

 

When I see a post that contradicts nearly everyone else's, if not everyone's opinions on this subject to date, then I find out he's a vendor for what he's promoting....I no longer trust or believe anything he says.  Thanks for stopping by.

[Always.Learning]

It's been ages since I posted on this forum, but today in a different thread I posted a few thoughts on my sonic impressions of the new operating system for the SOtM sMS-200. Some folks here might find it of interest:

 

 

At the end of this post I raise questions about how competitive SOtM is right now with a NUC/AL approach to server and renderer. I see that today we have a couple people posting on this very topic (although nothing appears to have been said about updates to the operating software for the sMS-200). I'd love to see more such comparisons -- I think the new SOtM software might inspire a few people to revisit earlier conclusions. 

[auricgoldfinger]

1 minute ago, Always.Learning said:

It's been ages since I posted on this forum, but today in a different thread I posted a few thoughts on my sonic impressions of the new operating system for the SOtM sMS-200. Some folks here might find it of interest:

 

 

At the end of this post I raise questions about how competitive SOtM is right now with a NUC/AL approach to server and renderer. I see that today we have a couple people posting on this very topic (although nothing appears to have been said about updates to the operating software for the sMS-200). I'd love to see more such comparisons -- I think the new SOtM software might inspire a few people to revisit earlier conclusions. 

 

I'm planning to do this comparison in the next few weeks.  I've been waiting for the Eunhasu updates to stabilize and become more usable.  4.54 seems to be a worthwhile starting point.

[Always.Learning]

Just now, auricgoldfinger said:

 

I'm planning to do this comparison in the next few weeks.  I've been waiting for the Eunhasu updates to stabilize and become more usable.  4.54 seems to be a worthwhile starting point.

 

Fantastic -- I'd love to hear your impressions.

[jean-michel6]

3 hours ago, andervt said:

feet

 

2 hours ago, andervt said:

Thank you Superdad, I was not aware that there was a rule for telling that I was a member of the trade, but this seems like a good rule.

 

There have been other comparisons with opposite results regarding Sotm and LPS powersupplyes, and that is the reason for me writing this. I have tested the LPS-1 one time and the LPS-1.2 two times. And the SPS-500 has been the better power without doubt in my tests. My friend who own the LPS power I tested also agree in what i wrote. I think it would be wrong of me to not enlighten auphile that there are different experiences, and in this way encourage to test themselves.

 I have 2 SOTM SPS500 and 2 lps 1.2 in my system .The sps500 is a nice lps in term of flexibility voltage and amp. 

However in term of sq the lps 1.2 is clearly superior. 

[Johnseye]

13 minutes ago, jean-michel6 said:

 

 I have 2 SOTM SPS500 and 2 lps 1.2 in my system .The sps500 is a nice lps in term of flexibility voltage and amp. 

However in term of sq the lps 1.2 is clearly superior. 

 

The sps500 is an SMPS.

[Geir-T]

35 minutes ago, jean-michel6 said:

 

 I have 2 SOTM SPS500 and 2 lps 1.2 in my system .The sps500 is a nice lps in term of flexibility voltage and amp. 

However in term of sq the lps 1.2 is clearly superior. 

Did you use any filtering on the SPS500 reducing the amount of noise this SMPS supply to the mains possibly "polluting" other (unfiltered?) components in your system? 

[Blake]

1 hour ago, mikicasellas said:

Yes they are very good, i have the one to connect the ISO REGEN to LPS-1 with also great results

 

Has anyone in the forum heard how better in terms of performance do the ones with the JSSG360 compared with the standard Canare 4S6 DC cable without JSSG360?:

 

DC-J01 Teflon Silver-Plated Star Quad DC(JSSG360) Cable

DC-GAC4 Gotham GAC-4/1 11301 UltraPro Star Quad DC(JSSG360) Cable

DC-7N16C Neotech UPOCC 7N Copper 16AWG DC(JSSG360) Cable

 

I bought the Gotham JSSG360 cable as well as the Canare 4S6 (not JSSG) DC cables from Ghentaudio.com and compared them to my Revelation Audio Labs Passage Cryosilver DC cable. Comparatively speaking, I thought the Gotham had a better soundstage than the Canare with more air and delineation, while the Canare had a more full, round and meaty sound. 

 

However, I thought the Gotham had some glare in the high frequencies that made it fatiguing for me, so I sold it and kept the Canare for my office system.  I do like the Canare.

 

Overall, the Revelation Audio Passage Cryosilver bettered both of them and it is staying put in the main rig.  I think this is all system dependent and you need to try for yourself as YMMV.   

[Quadman]

7 hours ago, numlog said:

Is there an explanation to this or just something you discovered yourself? 

most impressions online give the ''no moving parts, electrically quiet'' explanation as to why SSDs are best.

Tried it once with a small portion of my library and did not like the SQ, plus for larger libraries HDD's are cheaper and very dependable.  I also heard differences with 7200 RPM vs 5400 and stuck with 5400.

[FelipeRolim]

About hard drives 2,5" 5400rpm, I've tested it a lot at the beggining. Using a SOtM SATA II filter and external power, the hard drive sounded very very close to the SSD at the same condictions. I also tried to put the hard drive outside the computer, and the sound improved a little bit. However, only then was possible to avoid certain electromagnetic interference, and yet I couldn't get rid of a specific problem: when using JRiver or foobar2000, the best performance I achieved was configuring a complete buffer of music to RAM. Fact is, using JRiver or foobar2000, there were cases where the music was fully loaded into RAM, and only at the end, in the last 15 or 20 seconds of a song, the next one was starting to load. That made the 5400rpm hard drive, in these final seconds, need to re-accelerate (to get out of the latency state - spin-up) to be read properly. The result of this, for the audio, was a relative lack of uniformity in the final seconds of a song, which doesn't occur with the SSD (always ready to be read - much lower latency). But, it's important to note that the 5400rpm hard drive is usually better than the 7200rpm one, for some reasons, but for two in particular: a) lower vibration and less noise irradiation; b) easier to reach the standard working speed and, consequently, lower latency.

 

It's true that we're dealing with milliseconds, but when it comes to digital scope, it's exactly what we want to avoid. I like the SSD for the sonority and the price, but I only use it to store music files. The Windows runs directly from RAM.

[mozes]

8 hours ago, rickca said:

That's because you're not selling sPS-500.

I have all 3 units, and each one serves a purpose in my system. 

[the_doc735]

14 hours ago, Geir-T said:

I can confirm the listening impressions as reported by andervt on the NUCPJYH/Akasa fanless vs. SOTM-SMS-200 Ultra Neo  > tx-USBultra and LPS 1.2 vs. SPS-500. I am the one initiating this comparison since I am the owner of the NUC and the LPS 1.2 used in the test. 

 

I have been a long time lurker on this thread and have used the listening impressions reported here to decide what changes to apply in my own system. This has led to several changes over the past couple of years and the latest one change was to replace my Microrendu with a NUCPJYH built into an Akasa fanless case. This led to a clear improvement in my system and I decided to find out how this compared to the SOtM-SMS-200 Ultra Neo  & tx-USBultra. Based on the findings reported here, I expected the NUC alternative to be better, but to my surprise I found the opposite to be the case.

 

The following equipment were used in the test:

Paul Pang server full of the OCXO stuff running Roon Core

SOtM sNH-10G w/sCLK-EX

SOtM-SMS-200 Ultra Neo  & tx-USBultra powered by SPS500's

Mola Mola Tambaqui DAC 

Mola Mola Kaluga monoblocks

Respons Magna Musicum loudpeakers

Paul Pang cat 6 cables

Spiral Groove Strange Attractors under ALL boxes

More Furutech equipment than I can ever afford

Dedicated listening room with practically no remaining surface left acoustically untreated. 

 

A couple of the albums used for testing: Doug MacLeoud There's a Time (24 bit/Reference Recordings), Marta Gomez Entre Cada Palabra (24 bit). 

 

The SOtM-SMS-200 Ultra Neo  & tx-USBultra powered by SPS500's w/ SOtM silver DC cable were first swapped out for the NUC/Akasa/LPS 1.2/Ghent Neotech (JSSG360) cable (LPS 1.2 powered by SPS500)

 

It became evident that the NUC alternative lacks some definition in the bass region compared to the SOtM kit. Localization of instruments is also less precise in the NUC and the soundstage is smaller especially in width. Resolution in the highs is reduced with resulting less air and transparency. The difference was not subltle in this system.

 

Based on this result I wanted to find out how much of the difference came from the power supply of the NUC, so we swapped out the LPS 1.2 with the SPS500. In short the difference between the NUC and the SOtM rig was cut in half. The SPS500 improved all qualities of the sound. (Please note that power cables and DC cables used for the SPS500 are 2-3 X cost of the SPS500 itself, so result is not with stock cables)

 

A third finding of the test was that the NUC benefited from Spiral Groove Strange Attractors under its belly. It resulted in a slightly blacker background and also a slight improvement in resolution.

 

Since the first two findings are not in accordance with the impression I get when reading through this thread, I think it is of importance to report it.  

 

I plan to test the SPS500 replacing the LPS 1.2 in my own (more modest) system in the near future to see if I end up at the same conclusion or not. I am also curious about how the SR4 compares, but I guess I need to buy one to be able to find out. There are no Paul Hynes shops around here.

 

 

 

wonder if this verdict was the result of a backhand deal? (£xxxx)

[Geir-T]

33 minutes ago, the_doc735 said:

wonder if this verdict was the result of a backhand deal? (£xxxx)

I can confirm no. By the way, testing was done using the latest Eanhasu software (v. 0.4.5.1).

[rickca]

16 hours ago, Geir-T said:

This has led to several changes over the past couple of years and the latest one change was to replace my Microrendu with a NUCPJYH built into an Akasa fanless case. This led to a clear improvement in my system and I decided to find out how this compared to the SOtM-SMS-200 Ultra Neo  & tx-USBultra. Based on the findings reported here, I expected the NUC alternative to be better, but to my surprise I found the opposite to be the case.

As I suggested earlier, you need to compare NUC7PJYH + tX-USBultra to sMS-200ultra Neo + tX-USBultra ... or just NUC7PJYH vs sMS-200ultra.

 

The Paul Hynes SR4 is wonderful with the NUC7PJYH.  I don't have an sPS-500 so I can't tell you how they compare.  The only way to buy an SR4 is to order directly from Paul Hynes ([email protected]).

 

The SR4 (with PH DC3FSXLR silver cable) at 12V gives the impression of 'biggie sizing' the NUC7PJYH.  It delivers better bass articulation and dynamics and a richer tone.  I'd encourage you to try it. 

 

I'm really happy with the sound quality running AudioLinux (ramroot/extreme mode) of the NUC7PJYH/SR4 combination, and I'm not even using a tX-USBultra.

 

 

 

[Dev]

2 hours ago, rickca said:

As I suggested earlier, you need to compare NUC7PJYH + tX-USBultra to sMS-200ultra Neo + tX-USBultra ... or just NUC7PJYH vs sMS-200ultra.

 

The Paul Hynes SR4 is wonderful with the NUC7PJYH.  I don't have an sPS-500 so I can't tell you how they compare.  The only way to buy an SR4 is to order directly from Paul Hynes ([email protected]).

 

The SR4 (with PH DC3FSXLR silver cable) at 12V gives the impression of 'biggie sizing' the NUC7PJYH.  It delivers better bass articulation and dynamics and a richer tone.  I'd encourage you to try it. 

 

I'm really happy with the sound quality running AudioLinux (ramroot/extreme mode) of the NUC7PJYH/SR4 combination, and I'm not even using a tX-USBultra.

 

 

 

 

That's cool Rick. Did you or anyone get a chance to compare the SR4 to the lps-1.2, JS-2 or the Mojo Audio LPS ? If it hadn't been for the wait time, I might have pulled the trigger on the SR4 long back. Your review rekindles the thought again. I will soon send a mail to PH.

 

 

[austinpop]

9 minutes ago, Dev said:

 

That's cool Rick. Did you or anyone get a chance to compare the SR4 to the lps-1.2, JS-2 or the Mojo Audio LPS ? If it hadn't been for the wait time, I might have pulled the trigger on the SR4 long back. Your review rekindles the thought again. I will soon send a mail to PH.

 

Hi Dev,

 

Please search my NUC impressions from the index. I have compared the SR-4, LPS-1.2, and the sPS-500 powering the CJYH NUC. 

 

BTW - for those considering the SR-4... when I bought mine, the highest voltage available was 12V. I just learned that he is now offering these at higher voltages too. 

• The SR4-12 has switch positions for 5v, 7v, 9v and 12v.
• The SR4-19 has switch positions for 9v, 12v, 15v and 19v.
• The available output current is 2A continuous and 20A transient.
• The SR4-05 is a fixed voltage output version with a 4A continuous 20A transient current rating.

I don't want to divulge pricing and terms on the forum, but feel free to follow up with Paul directly.

[Dev]

15 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

Hi Dev,

 

Please search my NUC impressions from the index. I have compared the SR-4, LPS-1.2, and the sPS-500 powering the CJYH NUC. 

 

BTW - for those considering the SR-4... when I bought mine, the highest voltage available was 12V. I just learned that he is now offering these at higher voltages too. 

• The SR4-12 has switch positions for 5v, 7v, 9v and 12v.
• The SR4-19 has switch positions for 9v, 12v, 15v and 19v.
• The available output current is 2A continuous and 20A transient.
• The SR4-05 is a fixed voltage output version with a 4A continuous 20A transient current rating.

I don't want to divulge pricing and terms on the forum, but feel free to follow up with Paul directly.

 

Thanks @austinpop SR-4 it is 🙂

Its good to know more options for SR4 are now available. SR4-19v for the NUC seems promising. I will follow up with PH.

[andervt]

23 hours ago, andervt said:

I spent som spare time today reading this thread, and found that I shold post some comments reagarding my listening experiences with some of the products mentioned.

 

I have earlier tested the Sotm SPS-500 vs Ultracap LPS-1.

I found the SPS-500 clearly superior in overall soundquality. When using the the SPS-500 to power the LPS-1 instead of the supplyed power that came with the LPS-1 the difference was smaller but still in favour of the SPS-500.

 

I recently tested SPS-500 vs Ultracap LPS-1.2.

I also this time found the SPS-500 superior of the LPS-1.2. And I do not think the differences are subtle when I think of what is compared. With the SPS-500 the sound is cleaner .....

 

Before writing my post yesterday a read Austin Pops excellent intro to orientate me in this enormous thread. Readers are told to focus on direct listening test, and that is what i did.

 

As agreed, after this was commented, it is a good thing to identify that you are in the trade, but did not think of it when I wrote the post and agree that this is something the readers should know when they read my listening comparisons.

I do think someone in the trade also should be allowed to write their listening impressions in this forum. If not this forum will become poorer.

 

My commercial gain from what I wrote yesterday is hard to see. My name, contact info, webpages or other was not revealed before an other poster wrote my name and webpage url in a comment. That a potential buyer should find me in my frosen corner on the earth and buy products from me based on this post was not very realistically until my name and webpage url was published in the thread.

 

After 35 years as audio enthusiast I am not afraid to put my head forward and tell others of  my experiences and listening impressions even it they do not correspond with others. 

My impressions of the LPS and SOTM powersupply was commented as suspect since they were different. Next time I do a listening test and the result is different from others, I will still tell my version because it is the only one I know. If all tests have to have the same result this forum has now value. 

I am not the maker or distributor of Sotm, but have choosen to offer some of the products for sale since they are the best I have tested in their class.

I think this result is most interesting for readers, and showing that 2+2 is not always 4 in hi-fi encourage to test themselves.

My intensions with this test is totally misunderstood, and I stand 100% by the listening impressions i wrote yesterday.

 

There have been a NUC "wave" in this thread, and people have replaced a full package of Sotm units including masterclock with their NUC.

So when the NUC owner and I should compare SMS-200UN and tx-USBultra with the AL NUC we almost expected it to wipe the floor with the Sotm boxes. It did not.

I think it is interesting for readers to know that there are different experiences with NUC`s.

My intensions with this test is totally misunderstood, and I stand 100% by the listening impressions i wrote yesterday.

 

Informing that I experienced good results with Strange Attractors feet under Sotm and NUC made someone meen that I was misleading readers and dishonouring the forum since I sold these feet. In the next sentense I encouraged to try with small aluminium feet or other stiff alternatives. These can be found in your home or garage and cost nothing. Try a small shot glass or something like that 🙂  This is not very commercial , and is not misleading but informing, and a good advice to improve the sound in your system.

As this thread is so big I am not aware if this has been discussed here, but placing the SA feet under NUC when doing the test made an important improvement to the sound if you see it with an audio enthusiast eyes.

This tip is absolutely misunderstood and I stand 100% by this.

 

[mozes]

39 minutes ago, andervt said:

Try a small shot glass or something like that

I like this tweak!

[Cornan]

On 1/21/2019 at 7:14 PM, Cornan said:

A while ago @seeteeyou recommended the WD Passport Wireless Pro as a great SSD. It was a HDD, but that’s not at all my point here. I have’nt got the patience to look for that post and quote it. My actual point is that I have just bought the 2tb version to backup my SD card while I’m out photographing. I will receive it in a couple of days. The thing I did’nt really realize properly before (but maybe @seeteeyou did?) is that it is a uPnP server/Plex server and a hot-spot as well plus all-day battery powered (approx 9-10 hrs). I can surely see that this could prove to be a game changer as a server/HDD close to the audio gears. I intend to try it out and let you guys know how it compares to direct OpenHome Tidal streaming when listening to the same album.

 

I just wanted to give a small update of the WD Passport Wireless Pro. No music played at this point. Received it today and started to play around with it. It is actually better than expected for me personally since it have a seemless integration with LightningDS (via Twonky server) and Google Drive (where I store my music files. Makes it a piece of cake to transfer to Wireless Pro). It also work with both BubbleuPnP and BubbleDS Next. The album covers shows up directly. Nice! 

Everything is prepared for a direct comparence to Tidal through OpenHome. I just need the opportunity to try it out when there are no kids running around! 😊

 

(As a SD card backup and iOS backup it is simply perfect.)

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, andervt said:

 

Before writing my post yesterday a read Austin Pops excellent intro to orientate me in this enormous thread. Readers are told to focus on direct listening test, and that is what i did.

 

As agreed, after this was commented, it is a good thing to identify that you are in the trade, but did not think of it when I wrote the post and agree that this is something the readers should know when they read my listening comparisons.

I do think someone in the trade also should be allowed to write their listening impressions in this forum. If not this forum will become poorer.

 

My commercial gain from what I wrote yesterday is hard to see. My name, contact info, webpages or other was not revealed before an other poster wrote my name and webpage url in a comment. That a potential buyer should find me in my frosen corner on the earth and buy products from me based on this post was not very realistically until my name and webpage url was published in the thread.

 

After 35 years as audio enthusiast I am not afraid to put my head forward and tell others of  my experiences and listening impressions even it they do not correspond with others. 

My impressions of the LPS and SOTM powersupply was commented as suspect since they were different. Next time I do a listening test and the result is different from others, I will still tell my version because it is the only one I know. If all tests have to have the same result this forum has now value. 

I am not the maker or distributor of Sotm, but have choosen to offer some of the products for sale since they are the best I have tested in their class.

I think this result is most interesting for readers, and showing that 2+2 is not always 4 in hi-fi encourage to test themselves.

My intensions with this test is totally misunderstood, and I stand 100% by the listening impressions i wrote yesterday.

 

There have been a NUC "wave" in this thread, and people have replaced a full package of Sotm units including masterclock with their NUC.

So when the NUC owner and I should compare SMS-200UN and tx-USBultra with the AL NUC we almost expected it to wipe the floor with the Sotm boxes. It did not.

I think it is interesting for readers to know that there are different experiences with NUC`s.

My intensions with this test is totally misunderstood, and I stand 100% by the listening impressions i wrote yesterday.

 

Informing that I experienced good results with Strange Attractors feet under Sotm and NUC made someone meen that I was misleading readers and dishonouring the forum since I sold these feet. In the next sentense I encouraged to try with small aluminium feet or other stiff alternatives. These can be found in your home or garage and cost nothing. Try a small shot glass or something like that 🙂  This is not very commercial , and is not misleading but informing, and a good advice to improve the sound in your system.

As this thread is so big I am not aware if this has been discussed here, but placing the SA feet under NUC when doing the test made an important improvement to the sound if you see it with an audio enthusiast eyes.

This tip is absolutely misunderstood and I stand 100% by this.

 

Trust me, things won’t work out well for you if you keep talking about products you sell. Over the last 11 years this has happened countless times. People try to massage their language into something beneficial for the forum, but I can tell you it never works. You will turn readers against you and leave a trail of evidence that’s forever searchable. 

 

I can’t recommend strongly enough that you stop writing about products you carry. If you can’t stop you will be banned.