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

[romaz]

Looking for a little help...thought I'd try out the bridging method between my Mac Mini and microRendu but can't seem to get it working or at least seen through Roon Core on the Mini. Basically my setup is Router>thunderbolt ethernet > Mac Mini > ethernet port> ethernet cable > EMO EN-70HD > .5m ethernet > microRendu.

What i've done so far besides the hard connections, is turning on internet sharing for the thunderbolt ethernet to ethernet port in the Mac's network settings. On the Mac i can access the web page for the microRendu however Roon is not seeing it, neither can i connect to the Rendu's page from my phone or iPad. Am i missing something? Thanks!

If you're seeing your mR when you open the sonicorbiter site on your browser, that's a good thing. Make sure Roon is selected and then reboot your mR and restart Roon and see if that does it.

[romaz]

I've tried that a couple of times now, no luck.

Break up your bridge, turn off internet sharing and then create your bridge again and see what happens. Go ahead and configure your bridge using DHCP.

[romaz]

Perhaps it's not enough to make any conclusion. But the most interesting part is that mR's network latency is much higher than sMS-200's. And the differences of min and max of mR is way too large. On the other side, the sMS-200 did have very consistent and small latency.

I appreciate this post! As you've stated, this probably doesn't fully explain the differences between the mR and sMS-200 but I believe latency is an important parameter and one worth trying to optimize with any music server. You mentioned that the mR's network performance is limited to 480Mb/s max because of internal architecture and John Swenson has confirmed this in his previous posts but I don't think this is the issue as I understand that SOtM went out of their way to purposely limit the sMS-200's network performance to 100Mb/s. In fact, their earliest firmware could only communicate with 100Mb/s switches.

 

I view low latency in the same way as I do low impedance as ultimately, they impact the responsiveness of a component and a component's ability to resolve the micro details and the micro dynamics within a passage such as when steel brushes are used on a drum or when ride cymbals are played low. When you can hear the resonances from a clarinet's reed (an instrument that I play) and can feel the texture from a cello's strings as it is bowed or can distinguish the subtle differences in reverberation between 2 violins, then the engagement factor for me goes way up. In my view, it is the ability to resolve the infinitesimal details that separates extraordinary digital from common every day digital. Low noise is important for the sake of clarity and lack of harshness but it is the responsiveness of a system that is responsible for manifesting the timing brought about by a good clock.

 

As I reflect on why the mR and sMS-200 are both so good, I think the folks at Roon have summed it up very well. In the past, Roon was known more for it's library skinning features than for ultimate SQ as it was considered a "heavy" music player compared to a "light" music player like Bug Head Emperor. Where Roon's focus was on a rich overall listening experience that included convenience, ease of use and a pretty interface, Bug Head had only a singular focus and that was ultimate SQ. The problem with Roon's approach is that skinning, sorting or searching through a library of thousands of albums and presenting them in a pretty GUI requires "heavy" and noisy hardware and software resources whereas the best SQ generally comes from "light" resources that are much less noisy and more agile and responsive. Here is how Roon has proposed to resolve this dilemma:

 

Roon is heavier than Other Player

 

Many Audiophile grade media players focus on being extremely lightweight and doing nothing but audio playback. This is a tradeoff--they get to offer a simpler approach to sound quality, but they can't offer a rich user experience.

At Roon Labs, we aren't willing to sacrifice user experience or functionality at the altar of sound quality--we are determined to provide both at once.

At the same time, this is a bit of an oxymoron. A fully featured media server doing everything that we want it to do will never be as lightweight as a standalone, single-zone player application. So instead of trying to do the impossible, we've addressed this problem by changing the rules a little bit.

Instead of trying to pack a lightweight media player, and heavyweight media server into a computer in your listening room, we provide the tools you need to put space between those pieces--because they really don't belong together anyways.

This is, we feel, the best of both worlds--

 

• Our lightweight playback components (Roon Bridge, Roon Ready devices, and networked endpoints) are much lighter than any media player software out there because all they do is copy audio from a network interface to an audio device. They don't even have to do work to decode your media files!
  
• Our media server can afford to do things that no lightweight player app could do without losing its lightweight status--like automatically fetching and updating metadata for your library in the background, and supporting audiophile-quality playback in the listening room while other members of your household import new content and play audio in other rooms simultaneously.
  

As for their recommendations:

 

1. Core and output on separate devices

2. Control and output on separate devices

3. Keep an eye on the signal path

4. Don't underspec the server

5. Use ethernet between core and output

 

While these recommendations are made with Roon in mind, I think they can make sense in other situations and in fact, it is the pioneering efforts of the AO/JPLAY dual-box crowd that deserves credit here more than Roon.

 

Where the mR and sMS-200 excel vs the typical output PCs used in typical dual box AO/JPLAY setups is in their much simpler form factors. As opposed to off-the-shelf motherboards, these endpoints use custom spec'd motherboards free of the unnecessary and noise creating ICs that are unavoidable with off-the-shelf motherboards. They use audiophile-grade clocks fed by ultra low noise regulators and they have very short signal paths leading to very low impedance. Of course, they also incorporate lightweight OS's that further contribute to low latency and are run off of a small microSD card with a minimal electrical footprint. Having built more than a dozen music servers over the years, I have yet to build anything that has come close to sounding as good as these two endpoints and for so little money.

 

Regarding recommendation #5 (Use ethernet between core and output), I believe ethernet was viewed as an ideal connection method as opposed to USB between a noisy core PC and a quiet output PC due to its inherent galvanic isolation and error-correcting protocol but as those of us who feel we have benefited from this "direct connection" have realized, ethernet is not such a benign connection. Mark Jenkins of Antipodes Audio who is responsible for the very highly regarded DX Gen 2 ($6.5k) believes streaming via ethernet (ie NAS) definitely has its problems resulting in a compromise in resolution, clarity and immediacy compared to local playback in his machine while the enterprising folks at Sound Galleries believe their $16k SGM 2015 sounds better without an NAA.

 

What I do believe this "direct connection" has brought besides increased resolution, clarity and immediacy that Mark Jenkins talks about is transparency to upstream components which is both a good thing and a bad thing. For those of us who apply proper care and attention to our upstream components, we are rewarded for our efforts and for those of us who don't, there are sonic penalties.

 

As I embark on building the best music server I know how to as a feeder for either of these fine endpoints, if there is one observation I have made with all of my testing, it is the incontrovertible truth that it is always better to prevent a problem or to address it at the source than to have to fix it downstream because by then, irreversible damage has been done. If this is indeed true and I am successful with this build, will there still be a need for either the mR or sMS-200? I guess we'll see but my feeling is that any music server that is required to do heavy lifting can probably never be as quiet or as low impedance as either the mR or sMS-200.

 

As for the components I have thus far chosen for my build, it seems my decisions have come down to a balance between low noise and low latency. Sometimes it possible to have both but more often than not, it's trying to find the lesser of the evils and this isn't always intuitively obvious. Addressing latency, for example, is a matter of knowing where the bottlenecks are and addressing those so that other components in the chain aren't having to wait longer than necessary which can lead to not just timing errors but missed hand offs and even dropped bits. Of course, low latency at all costs can result in such noise that it isn't always worth it.

 

This is what I have come up with so far. For those contemplating their own build, hopefully, this can serve as another perspective and perhaps you would be willing to share your own. Nothing is completely set in stone and so I would appreciate the opinions of others regarding alternative options that are based on personal experience and insight. For those that believe bits are bits, this is the wrong thread for you because my experience has shown me that the transfer of digital very much has analog qualities. I prefer to be guided by science and common sense but like with most things regarding digital these days, I have found an open minded "empirical" approach to be more effective since there seems to still be much with digital that is not well understood.

 

Case - Streamcom FC8 Alpha Fanless ($180)

For NUCs, I have a bias for Akasa and for anything larger, I like the Streacoms both for aesthetic and functional reasons. The FC8 Alpha accommodates mini-ITX motherboards perfectly and are easy to work in. They use Streacom's thicker 4mm 6063 aluminum alloy which I have found to be fairly resistant to outside resonances and effective in blocking airborne RF.

 

Motherboard - Gigabyte GA-H110TN-GSM Plus ($110)

The smaller and the simpler, the better. The thin mini-ITX form factors can be powered directly from a 12V source via a convenient 2.5x5.5mm barrel connector which allows me to use my Paul Hynes SR7 which is a must. I like ASUS also but this Gigabyte model uses 2x the copper (2oz) in their PCB compared with other motherboards which was designed for overclockers as a means of better heat dissipation but also has the added benefit of lowering impedance by half. This model happens to have dual integrated Intel gigabyte NICs (Intel I219V and I211) which are not server grade. As this motherboard will be sent to SOtM to have its key clocks replaced, I noticed 5 clocks including a 24MHz system clock and dual 25MHz clocks for each LAN port and so I figured I would replace these 3 clocks. As I approached SOtM about replacing the linear regulators that feed each Intel LAN port, here is what Lee (one of SOtM's lead engineers) had to say:

 

"It's very difficult to replace switching regulator in mother board with linear regulator because mother board is very complex. Almost mother board use 6 or 8 layer PCB, it means maybe we can't see power signal lines. And maybe power signal lines share with other device...It makes difficult to replace."

 

Bummer.

 

LAN Adapter Card - Intel E1G42ETBLK Dual Port PCI-Express Server LAN adapter ($145)

So my solution to Lee's statement was to bypass the dual Intel LAN ports built into the Gigabyte motherboard with this card. They incorporate Intel's slightly older but highly regarded server-grade LAN chipset, the E1G42ET. In contrast to their newer I350-T2 chipset, this one consumes less power (2.8w vs >4w) but is also devoid of Intel's integrated power saving feature. Because it is PCIE, it has a lower latency pathway to the CPU and each LAN port has it's own independent path. Moreover, instead of 2 separate clocks for each LAN port on the Gigabyte motherboard, this card uses only a single clock which leaves me with 2 free clocks. To my delight, Lee has told me he can also replace the switching regulators on this card with SOtM's ultra low noise voltage regulators and further add capacitors. This would be as close to an audiophile LAN card as I can think of and may possibly allow me to remove my reclocking switch from the direct path and reposition it between my router and music server.

 

CPU - Intel 7700T (7th generation Kaby Lake) ($330)

This is a quad-core, 8-threaded CPU based on Intel's 14nm lithography. It has a base frequency of 2.9GHz with turbo speeds up to 3.8GHz and a TDP of 35w. I could easily have gone for the 6th generation 6700T but the newer 7700T is essentially the same price. As I have zero plans to overlock the CPU and will not be using HQPlayer for oversampling, I could also easily get by with an i5 but chose the i7 for its larger 8MB cache. As opposed to older generation Intel CPUs where the cache was equally distributed among the cores (usually 2MB per core), their new SmartCache has the option of utilizing the entire cache for a single core which is important since Roon isn't a multi-threaded application (from what I understand). According to Roon, the size of the cache makes a difference which is why they recommend against Celerons and their measly caches. Since the CPU is often the bottleneck, a large cache can keep latencies to a minimum.

 

Of interest and speaking of latencies, I expect to do something counterintuitive with this CPU that I hope will result in better SQ and so this is why the largest cache possible may become important. As opposed to some who are interested in overclocking to improve HQPlayer's performance, I intend to underclock to well below 15w TDP. I used to own a CAD CAT which had a dual core i7 in it with a TDP of 35 watts that Scott Berry, CAD's creator, dethrottled to 800MHz. He even dethrottled his RAM down to this same speed and so the OS experience was quite slow. As I started playing around with CPU and RAM timings, for sure, I found a direct correlation between slower speeds and improved SQ. This has been one of those situations where taking a hit on latency resulted in lower noise and better overall SQ. Fortunately, straight PCM or native DSD playback isn't CPU intensive.

 

RAM - Either 4GB of Kingston HyperX DDR3L 1600MHz CL9 SODIMM at 1.35V or Kingston HyperX DDR4 2133MHz CL13 at 1.2V (about $40 for either). Roon uses fixed buffers to allow memory playback totaling 1-2 tracks and so it doesn't benefit from large amounts of RAM. I figured this out by disconnecting my ethernet cable from my Mac Mini and my Mac Pro while streaming from Tidal and I noticed that music continued to play for a total of about 2 tracks regardless of whether my server had 4GB or 64GB. Of interest, when I disconnect the ethernet cable between my server and sMS-200, memory playback continues for only 5 seconds and so its memory buffer is quite small. Anyway, regarding DDR4 vs DDR3, DDR4 is more power efficient at 1.2V (and can be dethrottled down to 1.05V) vs 1.35V for DDR3L. DDR4 has faster read times but it turns out DDR3L even with its slower clock speeds has faster write times and lower latency (not just lower reported CAS latencies but actual lower measured latencies in both light and heavy environments) and so I need to hear for myself which results in better SQ and what further dethrottling may lead to. The folks at Sound Galleries have reported that with their highly overclocked server, they are getting better SQ with DDR3L.

 

OS Drive - I am finding the OS drive to be more important than the music storage drive with respect to SQ but to not have SSDs at all in the system is very beneficial with regards to less harshness. As to what I'll actually end up using is up in the air but I will be testing a few options and I already know one thing, I won't be going with a PCIE SSD in NVMe mode. PCIE NVMe SSDs have extremely low latency compared against SATA SSD and spinning hard drives and indeed, in my comparisons, there is better perceived detail resolution with NVMe but it comes with a huge compromise that is no longer tolerable and that is high frequency noise. As I posted previously, with my previous Mac Mini setup where I ran the OS (El Capitan) off a 64GB PCIE SD card, there was this wonderful relaxed, calm and natural presentation. Despite hours of listening, I never fatigued. Unfortunately, it isn't possible to run Windows off an SD card on a Mac Mini which forced me to install a small 128GB PCIE SSD and run Windows off of that. While I reported that the presentation is more "in your face" and fatiguing, with W2012R2 + AO + Process Lasso, it resulted in a return of some of that calm and quiet that I enjoyed with the SD card with the further upside of better precision and imaging and so I found the overall improvements to be worth the compromise. Or so I thought.

 

With the addition of SOtM's superclock to my sMS-200, switch and dX-USB HD (USB to SPDIF converter), what I have noticed with more time is that these components (especially the switch) are now even MORE transparent to both the good and bad qualities of my upstream server. Clarity, detail, timing, dynamics and depth are all much improved but so is the etch and glare that this PCIE SSD brings with it, so much so that I removed my new reclocking switch from the signal path due to irritation and fatigue.

 

As I decided to move away from the PCIE SSD and installed my OS onto a SATA SSD which I have connected via my Pachanko UPOCC copper SATA Reference cable and powered by my LPS-1, the SQ is MUCHO improved! Based on @lmitche's recommendation, I also compared my Samsung 850EVO SSD against a Seagate 2.5in 500MB hard drive also connected via this SATA cable and powered by an LPS-1 and I have to agree with him, there is even less HF noise that is to my liking. Thank you, Larry!

 

But this was not my best overall SQ, however. I went back to El Capitan on the SD card yesterday and without question, right now, this is where the magic is at. That relaxed, natural and effortless presentation that made the Mac Mini so magical when I first heard it was back and gone is the HF noise that even my hard drive seemed to still have some of. Where OSX lacks in precision and imaging compared against my optimized Windows setup, SOtM's better clocks seem to more than make up for it, especially now that I am able to reintroduce my switch back into my chain without irritation. While I still believe optimized Windows is better than Mac OS, the secret is to be able to run the OS off a flash card of some sort.

 

My Lexar 64GB SDXC card consumes no more than 0.6 watts max and while they are definitely slower than even a spinning hard drive, the newer UHS-I drives have good enough random disk I/O capability where the OS experience with El Capitan isn't painful and since I run my Roon remote software off my Mac Pro or iPad, it hasn't mattered. Of interest, based on the experience of Raspberry Pi users who run their OS off a microSD card, it has been found that certain microSD cards have even better random I/O performance (specifically the Samsung EVO+ which run about $30) and so that is what I will be testing next.

 

As to how to run W2012R2 + AO off an SD card, here is what I have found and placed an order for. It is coming in from China and who knows if it will be good but it accepts SDXC cards and connects to the motherboard via SATA. It is supposed to be bootable and the motherboard is supposed to see the SD card as any other SATA drive without the need for drivers. Of interest, this card has a clock and if it sounds good, I will likely replace that clock as well. I will also have the option of powering it with my LPS-1 if necessary which is something that is not possible with my Mac Mini:

 

Sintech SD/SDHC/SDXC/MMC Flash Memory card to SATA Adapter as 2.5" SATA SSD | eBay (about $20)

 

If it is as good as hoped, I would have the option of using others for music storage as 1TB SD cards have already been announced by SanDisk. Presently, 512GB SDXC cards run as low as $200 and when used for music storage and playback, they impart that same relaxed quiet quality minus any harshness.

 

Sorry for the horribly long post but this is where I'm at at this time and I would appreciate any constructive input others may have on how to improve it.

[romaz]

Hi romaz,

 

Great to hear you were able to duplicate the SQ benefits gained from replacing an SSD with a hard drive. I am sure your SD card experiments will prove to be even better and I look forward to reading about your results.

 

The rest of your build looks great. I would just say that it may make sense to keep the pcie x4 slot open rather then use it for a network card. My experience here with the Adnaco fiberUSB solution powered by the LPS-1 has been very successful. With the Adnaco, if you store your music locally, the network is only used for control signals, and you achieve a first level of GI without the need for the NAA.

 

I am anxious to try a second level of GI and reclocking with the ISO REGEN.

 

Without the need for network drives, more windows processes can be turned off, and the SQ increases again. I'm running Windows 10 with 21 processes including Roon and HQplayer.

 

Having only run I7-6700ks here, I am not sure that the lower TDP CPUs will crank dsd512 in HQplayer. DSD512 is a big step up, so I'd try to ensure you can handle it in your new build. I think the 65 watt parts like the i7-7700 are your best bet with a turbo clock speed at 4.2 ghz.

 

Also populating the two closest ram slots to the CPU of the 4 DDR4 slots on my motherboard sounds better, even though it is said to break the dual channel capability.

 

Anyway my 2 cents FWIW,

 

Larry

Thanks, Larry. Very helpful and I appreciate the tip on the Adnaco USB unit. I am not familiar with this unit and I wonder how it might compare to the Acousense AFI USB modules from Germany which I haven't tried either. The Adnaco looks simpler and to be able to power it with an LPS-1 would make it a better choice probably. To be honest, I am skeptical that the optical isolation portion would benefit me since my DAC's USB input is already galvanically isolated but you never know what complete optical isolation might provide and it would appear the Adnaco would have 2 clocks that could be replaced for the better and this dual layer of reclocking could allow for a single box solution instead of server + NAA. It would help if you had experience with an mR or sMS-200 and could say that this Adnaco solution was better but as it stands, I am bowled over by my new sMS-200 Ultra. If I can secure a Adnaco unit to try, I will definitely do so.

 

Regarding the 6700K (or 7600K), I don't use HQP and have no interest in overclocking and so I am content to be able to use a low power CPU.

 

Thanks for sharing that you like how your DDR4 sounds. I have no experience with DDR4.

 

I prefer not to use network drives either as in my system, local playback for sure sounds a bit better although I maintain a NAS for comparison testing and for backup but I also stream from Tidal and so I can't shut down my network completely. As I plan to upgrade the "incoming" LAN port's clock on my new server and with a Paul Hynes SR7 powering my modem/router, I am hoping to bring Tidal streaming to nearly the same level of SQ as local playback. As it stands, network streaming doesn't sound horrible at all. If I am successful in elevating network playback close to the SQ level of my current local playback, it may encourage me to pursue building an audiophile class modem/router with better clocks and regulators and attempt to integrate larger capacity music storage into the router itself. I find the idea of an audiophile class modem/router/NAS that I can power with a single lead from my SR7 to be an attractive scenario just so I can provide a high quality stream to other areas of my home.

Anyway, interesting times ahead. Thanks again.

 

Roy

[romaz]

Exactly my experience. I reported the other night substituting a Mac Mini/MMK/JS-2 for a 2008 Mac Pro. Subsequent listening had me thinking this was among my most significant upgrades. That Mac Pro had been doing much harm - and holding everything else back.

 

 

 

I had thought I installed Sierra on my SD card, but this morning there was a notification that encouraged upgrading to Sierra. Turns out I inadvertently installed El Capitan. :-)

 

 

 

Apologize - are you kidding? It was an awesome post. Thanks so much for putting all that effort into it.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

Thanks, Kenny. I take back my recent recommendation of installing a PCIE SSD drive on your Mac Mini so that you can try an optimized version of Windows. You would be better off trying Windows off of a Thunderbolt hard drive instead.

[romaz]

Hello Roy,

 

Having only understood half of your new impressive (scientifical) approach, the take home message for me is to install the OSX on a (PCIE ?) SD-card.

 

As I have decided to buy a Mac mini, I would like to know, where do you recommend to have the Roon core installed on? On SD-card as well?

 

Jorg- Michael

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

Hello Jörg,

 

Yes, that is correct. OSX on an SD card has been the best sounding approach I have found so far with the Mac Mini. With the Mac Mini, the SD card reader is on the PCIE bus which is a nice bonus as this has a more direct connection (lower latency) to the CPU compared to SATA.

 

Roon core (and its database) can only be installed on the OS drive and so in this case, it will install on your SD card. Roon's database can take up quite a bit of space depending on how large your music collection is (about 2GB per 1000 albums is what Roon is quoting). A 32GB card could work but a 64GB SD card would provide you better future expansion.

[romaz]

Hi Roy,

 

Well I do have experience with both the predecessor to the SMS-200, the SMS-100 and the microRendu. I owned and used the SMS-100 for over a year, using it with minimserver and soxr upsampling.

 

Despite my initial resistance, about a year ago Eurodriver insisted that I learn about HQplayer upsampling and DSD512 DACs. Well a year later I am convinced that using HQplayer to upsample before the DAC is the only way to go. While this becomes apparent at DSD256, DSD512 takes things to another level, and well supported and inexpensive DACs are available that enable us to access this incredible level of SQ without spending 10s of thousands. I am grateful to Eurodriver for his support.

 

Key to this achievement is the use of so called "raw or native DSD" support on the playback chain. Unfortunately at the moment Linux has only nascent support for raw DSD and this results in frequent pop and ticks that makes Linux an unusable solution for day to day use.

 

Hoping this was fixed with the microRendu, I bought one to use as NAA. It was later returned after realizing that the problem persisted. Expectations are the SMS-200 will suffer the same problem as it appears to run a hacked version of the same Fedora based software. Led by Jesus R, many people are working to solve this problem, and it looks like progress is being made, so I am hopeful that Linux will be back in my system the near future.

 

In the meantime and FWIW, HQplayer upsampling to DSD512 with Windows 10 sounds phenomenal, and better then any other solution heard here to date. I would encourage you to purchase a system with this capability in your new build, even if you don't use it initially. You don't need the k version and related overclocking which is why I recommended a fixed clock version. Given your obvious passion for SQ, it would be a shame to see you build a new machine with a processor that is one model upgrade and $10 to 20 from being a dsd512 capable machine.

 

I'll shut up now.

 

Larry

Hi Larry,

 

As always, thank you for your valued input. I am very much in favor of upsampling, it's just I do it in my DAC (Chord DAVE) and not in my PC. DAVE upsamples well beyond DSD512 or 768kHz PCM via its FPGA. Chord's new M-scaler (due out next month) will allow DAVE to upsample even more (6x more) and I have my order placed already for this unit. Having heard it at CES in January, the differences are tremendous in terms of clarity, dynamics and depth.

 

I own 2 HQPlayer licenses (for Windows and Mac) and I have played with it extensively over the past year. I have a robust workstation with dual 8-core Xeons, 64GB of RAM and an nVidia K5000 GPU with 1536 CUDA cores and so upsampling to anything has not been a problem. In other systems based on chip DACs that I have heard, upsampling to DSD 128 and 256 resulted in a very nice improvement. Most chip DACs have considerable substrate noise and the smoothness of DSD nicely glosses over any harshness but DSD has its own compromises that I struggle with. With my DAVE, DSD512 resulted in a step down in SQ even though the DAVE's ASIO driver is capable of native DSD512 and not just DoP. Even 16/44 Redbook sounds better to my ears than anything upsampled to DSD512 with this DAC. I am probably in the minority in that I don't like the softness of DSD and its inherent timing issues and with HQP, I actually preferred upsampling to 768kHz over DSD512 but with my DAC, no HQP oversampling still sounded better.

 

This works out in my favor in that I don't have to concern myself with uber powerful (and electrically noisy) hardware.

[romaz]

I don't know if anyone has noticed this relatively new "audiophile" switch:

best audiophile Switch, high end switch - AQVOX Audio Devices

It's a nice looking switch and they seem to have addressed all the issues one would want addressed except maybe optical isolation but I agree, the asking price is steep given that the quality of the clock is uncertain.

 

Paul Pang has now released an actual audiophile-class router/switch with an OCXO clock and as expected, it isn't cheap:

 

SHOPPING AREA: AUDIO GRADE ROUTER ,SWITCH

[romaz]

Great post Roy.

 

Of course your above paragraph is a bit of deja vu from 3 years ago :

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f27-uptone-audio-sponsored/attention-current-mac-mini-users-boot-mavericks-sd-card-load-ramdisk-dismount-your-internal-sata-drives-and-pour-drink-musicians-walking-out-your-speakers-18159/

 

While my optimized SD card is still running Mavericks (with about 65 processes/280 threads), I'm trying to make time to slim an El Capitan install--to at least get under 100 processes--so I can run the current version of HQ Player (via other than the microRendu/NAA). Staying away from the truly bloated Sierra!

 

It is quite something how sonically competitive a simply-tweaked Mac mini can be. My setup with it is:

2012 i7 2.6GHz with 16GB RAM

Our Mac mini DC-conversion/Linear Fan Controller Kit (MMK)

Our JS-2 choke-filtered, dual-output, 5-7 amp LPS

32GB SD card booting heavily-slimmed OS

Internal SATA HD dismounted (I'd remove it entirely, but really need it, with its multiple partitions, for experiments and OS image building; but I "eject" all partitions when using for playback)

 

Only connections to the computer are:

1) the DC power cable (and the coax/SMA for the MMK>JS-2 pseudo-Kelvin-sense voltage feedback circuit);

2) the USB cable (ports 1 and 3 are the best sounding by far) feeding my pre-production ISO REGEN (itself powered by an LPS-1 of course)

3) 25 foot BlueJeans/Belden Cat6a Ethernet cable direct to the 27" 4GHz iMac on my desk--used for Screen Sharing and sharing of a large drive with my music library.

 

I have the direct Ethernet connection set up for Jumbo Frames (MTU 9000) as that reduces overhead and I thought I heard a difference long ago.

 

--------

 

I might build up a high-power machine for DSD512 someday (Larry bugs me about it all the time ), but life is too short for me stress with Windows. Seems likely that Linux DSD issues will get worked out, and I do think that a split high-horsepower SRC/SDM machine to low power, all linear regulated renderer device will be the most desirable.

 

--------

 

Continue on gents. I watch with pleasure...

 

--Alex C.

Thanks, Alex. I remember coming across your thread a few years back. The title of your thread was too compelling not to want to read through it. As I stated before, what you had done was a source of inspiration.

 

I agree that a Mac Mini is nice setup for a music server. It's housed in an attractive and fairly resonant-free aluminum chassis. Although Apple had different intentions for doing it, in shielding their RAM and CPU in a stainless steel cage, they also effectively provided a nice RF shield against 2 components that generate quite a bit of it. It also has very short signal paths and putting the SD card reader on a PCIE bus and allowing the OS to boot from it was a genius move. Despite its CPU fan, this thing generates only 11dB of noise and is essentially silent. Obviously, it lends itself to being powered by a 12V source and your MMK is the best way I know to do it. On top of that, their hardware just works which is the benefit of their closed system -- all their components have been vetted for compatibility and reliability. Compared against a NUC, I find it to be a better starting platform and many used Mac Minis can be found cheaply on Ebay.

 

I have not yet tried jumbo frames but it makes sense that playback of large music files this way could sound better.

[romaz]

I’ve been experimenting with various ethernet cables for both spans of the bridge that I’ve configured on my Mac Mini. Yesterday afternoon a friend (who’s also a Wireworld and Audioquest dealer) and I compared several different cables on both spans of that bridge. (Potentially dangerous to have a friend who brings audio goodies to your home and also brings with him a credit card reader. LOL)

 

Location 1: Paul Pang switch to microRendu (all 1 m):

 

1A: WW Starlight (~ $210 for 1m)

1B: Nordost Blue Heaven (~ $400 for 1m)

1C: WW Platinum Starlight (~ $850 for 1m)

 

Location 2: wall jack to Mac Mini (both 8m):

 

2A: WW Chroma (~ $200 for 8m, or $80 termination fee + $15 per meter)

2B: Audioquest Cinnamon (~ $200 for 8m)

 

(A custom 18" run of Audioquest Carbon CAT700 was used between Mac Mini and Paul Pang switch the entire time).

 

First up was 1A vs 1C with 2B left in place. It took a number of swaps, but I thought I heard a slight veil removed with 1C. It seemed subtle though.

 

Next was 2A vs 2B with 1C left in place. Much easier to hear important differences. The track "Words of Wonder" from Keith Richards' "Main Offender" album features some really interesting high hat playing. With the 2A everything was in the right place such that the high hats and the way they were struck was very convincing both spatially and tonally. 2B disrupted that somewhat by tossing out some important cues that conveyed realism. It also threw less clear of an imaging picture with a few other tracks. Back in the box it went.

 

Leaving the 2A in place we then swapped 1A for 1C and there was an apparent loss of transparency. The spatial and tonal cues of the high hat were mostly retained, but the high hat just didn't stand out as clearly. (Sigh)

 

The more we listened with 1C/2A in place the more impressed we became with its transparency. It did the best job of just getting the heck out of the way - but there’s definitely diminishing returns when considering the price of 1C over 1A. But if one is looking to squeeze out that very last bit, it's definitely worth giving this cable an audition. No, I didn't buy one.

 

Maybe most impressive was 2A - at least relative to the well regarded 2B. Construction-wise it also feels like you are getting much more from your money with 2A. The same connectors are used on all three levels of WW Ethernet.

 

Last up was 1B. This didn't get the same level of attention in terms of comparisons. It was about on par with the 1A, so it seemed too be priced too high. Also disappointing to see a $400 cable with connectors featuring the typical plastic tabs that seem to too easily break off.

 

The 8m run of WW Chroma remained in place last night after my friend left. I thought I heard some nice improvements over what I had been hearing with the 8m run of Audioquest Cinnamon in place, including a blacker background and improved clarity - particularly in the upper frequencies. I should point out that the Cinnamon had about three weeks to burn-in, while the WW Chroma had only 3-4 nights of burn-in prior to yesterday.

 

Hope this was of interest.

Thanks, Kenny! Very helpful. My impression is that the differences you heard weren't dramatic, is that right? I used to own the WW Silver Starlight and it made an obvious difference in my system (probably the most obvious of any ethernet cable I've ever tried) but not for the better (too much treble energy) and so I sold it recently. I know you didn't buy the WW Platinum. What did you decide to go with for your location 1? It sounds like you're sticking with the WW Chroma for Location 2?

 

I have also compared the BJC Cat6A and I find that cable to probably be the best value given its low cost. It uses floating shields and solid core copper and have rugged terminations. I found the relatively inexpensive Supra CAT8 to also sound good (slightly better than the BJC) in my setup. I tried the AQ Vodka and Diamond and they sounded fine but I didn't feel they were worth the money. I use SOtM's CAT6 only because I already own it (I bought it 2 years ago) and it seems to be as good as the Supra CAT8 resulting in better smoothness. Thus far, I have not found ethernet cables to make a huge difference but rather a nice finishing touch.

[romaz]

I've been following this thread with keen interest. Thanks for all those who have contributed, especially Romaz! I have been thinking as to whether or not this setup with a direct connection from my Mac Mini to my PS Audio DirectStream DAC with Bridge II. Keep in mind, the Bridge II on the DS DAC connects via ethernet and incorporates a Roon endpoint. So, from what I can gather, there is no obvious reason I couldn't "bridge" my Mac Mini with thunderbolt dual ethernet dongle and run direct to the Bridge II card on my DS DAC. Has anyone tried this?? I would love to ditch my USB connection. Thanks in advance for your input.

I don't see why it wouldn't work. I used to own the DirectStream and I would be interested to know if this direct connection improves it.

[romaz]

Roy,

 

Thank you very much for your feedback. I really enjoy your every article and am always looking forward to your very thorough insight into each topic.

 

Back to sMS-200, by further investigating into it I realize that the CPU used is A20 from Allwinner. It's a dual core Cortex A7 ARM CPU. It needs an external Ethernet PHY which is Realtek RTL8211E. From Allwinner's linux-sunxi community it mentioned:

 

"For reliable Gigabit networking (1000Mbit operation), several sunxi devices require an important tweak that adjusts the relative timing of the clock and data signals to the PHY, in order to compensate for differing trace lengths on the PCB"

 

I believe that SOtM must have put a lot of effort in tweaking their Ethernet driver to come to it's present state. That may also explains why they prefer 100Mbps over gigabit at the early product stage.

 

I totally agree with your low impedance perspective. Yet I have some different point of view regarding the latency issue. The way I look at latency is a little similar to your view of CPU clock. It doesn't have to be the lowest but the consistent and predictable timing performance is one of the key factor to a good sounding system.

 

Another point that we all agree that could degrade SQ is the EMC interference. As we all know wherever electric current goes there's electric-magnetic field generated. It gets worse if the current fluctuates frequently. And as you said, which I couldn't agree more is, that "it is always better to prevent a problem or to address it at the source than to have to fix it downstream".

 

One way to achieve low current fluctuation is to use a fixed system clock. All that an audiophile music server needs is a steady and consistent operation without power saving nor hyper speed function. A fixed frequency system clock can do it just fine. And it is a unique feature in Daphile which I believe can improve the SQ quite a bit.

 

Based off the heavy lightweight media server belief, I'm very interested to give ROCK a try. I'll report back when I done the test.

Thanks, gadgetman. I always find it interesting to know the specific components used within a product and whether they were chosen for quality reasons or for cost-saving reasons. I'm sure SOtM was very intentional in their design of the sMS-200.

 

You've brought about an interesting point with CPU clocking that I hadn't considered. It completely makes sense to have as little current fluctuation as possible and so it would make sense to cap CPU frequency at a specific baseline and prevent turbo mode which is easy enough to do in BIOS. I already disable any power saving.

 

Yes, I'm interested to hear how ROCK sounds. Unfortunately, it doesn't lend itself to end-user tweaking and so you can't bridge your LAN ports within ROCK.

[romaz]

The improvement from WW Platinum Starlight over WW Starlight fell into "subtle but important, but not important enough that I couldn't live without it". So no, definitely not dramatic.

I noticed the same subtle difference with the more expensive AQ Diamond over the Vodka. I understand that pure silver is very expensive (especially UP-OCC grade silver) but with these cables, I didn't think that last bit of refinement you got was anywhere close to being worth the money.

 

 

But the improvement from WW Chroma over AQ Cinnamon was more along the lines of "I gotta have that!", but of course the price factored into that.

 

Very interesting.

 

As I mentioned I heard nothing like that here relative to any of the other Ethernet cables I've had here. Maybe you could try their Chroma? The absence of silver might reduce the treble energy but still give you the benefit of their noise reducing construction.

I actually prefer the detail and speed of high-grade silver done right but I have noticed that I struggle with silver-plated copper. I understand why they do it but it often comes across as sounding disjointed to my ears but this is obviously a personal sensitivity.

 

WW Starlight at location 1 and WW Chroma at location 2. I am *extremely* pleased with how everything is sounding now. I honestly still can't get over how I got such a massive upgrade from swapping my Mac Pro for the Mac Mini/MMK/JS-2.

I agree. This statement really puts these differences in perspective.

 

Given all the positive comments about BJC's Ethernet cables, I know I should have tried some. I'm just having trouble getting over a not very positive experience I had listening to one of their interconnects in my system several years ago.

We have a very similar experience with their interconnects. Back when I didn't really believe cables made a difference, I bought a whole loom of BJC cabling including balanced interconnects. I had just taken possession of a brand new HeadAmp Blue Hawaii SE (an electrostatic headphone amp) and I was very excited to own this amp after years of lusting after it and being mesmerized by it at headphone meets. I connected it to my DAC with my BJC balanced interconnects and it sounded horrible, just thin and lifeless! I thought maybe the cables needed to be broken in but even after a couple hundred hours, they were no better and I was ready to sell this amp out of disgust when a colleague lent me a pair of modestly priced Morrow interconnects and amazingly, this amp came to life. Same deal with their analog RCA cables and their speaker cables but their ethernet cables and HDMI cables are different. I have found those to be of very high quality and an excellent value.

[romaz]

I'm thinking if several people ask the Roon developers, they may add such an option in the web interface.

 

Also I haven't checked if NUC's has dual RJ45. Which I suppose is a must, unless a USB to Ethernet dongle is a good working solution.

It supports thunderbolt.

 

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/rock-what-linux-distribution-answered-there-is-no-3rd-party-os/21613

 

 

https://ark.intel.com/products/89187/Intel-NUC-Kit-NUC6i7KYK

I had read your post on the Roon forum. Thanks for bringing it up with them but it seems their response was fairly clear that ROCK was designed to be a ready-made optimized Roon OS for non-tweakers. From what I can tell, the user has almost no customization options at all. From what I read, it was also specifically designed to run only on NUCs and so it has a very specific target.

 

At CES, I got a chance to see the newest round of Intel NUCs and none of them have dual NICs but a few will have Thunderbolt 3 ports. Gigabyte's newest batch of NUCs (BRIX), however, will have both dual NICs and Thunderbolt 3 and so this could be a good option for some:

 

Gigabyte Brix Get Updated - Skylake Processors, Thunderbolt 3, GeForce GTX 950M & Dual Gigabit LAN - Legit Reviews

[romaz]

This is a NUC board ?

It's Gigabyte's version of a NUC. Whether it will run ROCK or not, I'm not sure.

[romaz]

Roy,

 

I didn't realize you are a Chord DAVE DAC owner. Knowing this tells me that we are approaching this hobby from different corners, both valid, but different on many levels. We could debate the benefits of each approach, but that's all been done on CA before. That said, clearly different experiences lead to different choices. I'm cool with that.

 

Thanks as always for sharing your experiences here. I like your empirical approach and willingness to test alternative solutions even though they may seem counterintuitive at times.

 

I always learn something by reading your posts and look forward to more in the future.

Hi Larry,

 

I have my equipment list under my profile. I realize it would be better to have it under my signature but because my equipment list seems to be perpetually in flux, I've been too lazy to do it and so I apologize.

 

I consider a digital front end to consist of both a music server and DAC and for those who use HQPlayer, this couldn't be more true. I have purposely stayed away from the discussion of DACs as I think that belongs on another thread but I figured I would briefly discuss my philosophy on DACs here so that people can decide if my situation is applicable to their own.

 

I have seen some of the debates regarding Chord products here on CA and other sites and there are a lot of opinions thrown out, some are based on fact and some are not. I have no loyalty to any one brand or topology having gone through several DACs just in the past 2 years including a very fine Bricasti M1 (delta sigma) and a sublime TotalDac d1-monobloc (R2R) before selling these and settling on my current DAC, the Chord DAVE (FPGA), but rather than side with one idealogy over another based on theoretical grounds, I elected to let my ears decide. I think it's the only way to make a decision regarding expensive components that are also foundational to how good your system can sound. Do I believe the Chord DAVE will be my last DAC? My history suggests that it won't but based on what I have heard thus far, it speaks to me better than any other.

 

I have owned and compared many different music servers but I have owned and compared even more DACs and in a digital only system, I find the digital interpreter to be my most important component and of equal importance to my transducer. Just a few months ago, I had the privilege of directly comparing the DAVE against the latest iteration of the Nagra HD which upsamples to DSD (about $30k) and the dCS Vivaldi V2 with master clock and upsampler which can upsample to either DXD or 2xDSD ($73k). This past summer, I drove to the Light Harmonic factory in northern California hoping to hear what their fully loaded $180k Sire DAC might sound like only to realize that this is a built to order DAC and that they had no Sires just lying around. Having attended CES, Axpona, RMAF, THE Show in Newport, the California Audio in San Francisco and several Can Jams just in the past year, I have heard almost every production DAC I have been interested in hearing and after THE Show in Munich this coming May, hopefully, I will get a chance to hear the remaining DACs I am curious about. I do all this not to prove anything but because I am genuinely interested in how something sounds. Just ask my wife, this compulsion borders on insanity.

 

As part of my local audiophile society, we meet regularly to listen to great music and hear and compare new things that various members have decided to try out. We have tried to be methodical about how we test and compare and when it comes down to small differences, we blind test and we have become quite proficient at it. At least 1-2x per year, we do a DAC shootout and these exercises have provided considerable perspective on different DAC technologies including chip-based DACs (delta-sigma) vs R2R vs FPGA or NOS vs oversampling. These exercises have provided valuable perspective about what's out there, how they compare and their collective and individual strengths and weaknesses.

 

What I have learned is the following:

 

1. All modern DACs regardless of topology or cost have merit. Even with a $30 DAC, I have no problems differentiating a violin from a viola or distinguishing Pavarotti from Placido Domingo. If the content is good, I have no trouble finding musical engagement from even the DAC in an iPhone with the stock earbuds that come with it but with better DACs, the level of engagement definitely goes up.

 

2. The most important function of a DAC is to be faithful to the recording and so a perfect DAC should have no sound of its own. It's job is made more difficult by the limitations of all ADCs but in my view, the best DACs are resolute, transparent and neutral and the best DACs keep no secrets and tell no lies. This is where I struggle with NOS as NOS endeavors only to intepret the product of the ADC after it has sampled the original analog signal. Oversampling is more ambitious and in its most noble form, it strives to reconstruct the original analog waveform before it was sampled by the ADC through interpolation via digital filters. With HQP, it does it via a computer before the DAC, with Rob Watts' DACs, he prefers to do so within the DAC via an FPGA. Which is better should come down to what you ears tell you is better rather than by any specific ideology.

 

2. All DACs have compromise. Some DACs excel in digital conversion, some excel in their analog stage, some excel in their power supplies but it's rare to have a DAC that has the best of everything. I have yet to hear the perfect DAC.

 

3. DACs run the gamut in price from $1 to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The price of a DAC doesn't guarantee performance. Some DAC companies I know will price some of their DACs to stratospheric levels with the intention of marketing them to certain parts of the world who insist that price and quality go together and prefer to listen with their wallets rather than their ears. These companies have shared with me that if they didn't price their DACs higher, some of these areas of the world wouldn't even give their DACs a second look.

 

4. DACs matter more for some types of music than others. For heavily compressed studio recordings that have minimal dynamic range, even a $100 AudioQuest Dragonfly can sound as competent as a fully loaded $130k MSB Select II. The most difficult thing to convincingly portray is an unamplified human voice and I have found no digital system yet that has succeeded in fooling me but technology is definitely improving. While I listen to and enjoy many genres, 75% of what I listen to is classical music including both large orchestral and small ensemble. I also enjoy small ensemble jazz and vocals but by far, much of what I listen to is unamplified acoustical music. This is where I find many DACs to stumble especially with regards to detail, depth and precision and as I have stated before, it comes down to the little details that separates the best DACs from the average DACs.

 

5. DACs (and music servers) cannot produce sound on their own. They are a small but important part of a larger chain and so in evaluating a DAC or music server, it's more important to know how that piece of equipment contributes to the balance of the system as a whole. This is why some DACs excel in some systems but not in others. In general, I find balance to be the most important quality of a music system. Without it, it's hard to move on.

 

6. Within our group, in our listening tests, there is rarely unanimous consensus. Even within my own household, we have differing opinions about things and so I have learned to respect all opinions realizing that what works for one person and their personal sensitivities may not work for another. In my professional life, I am a physician but also a published medical research scientist and having participated in basic science research as well as numerous randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials, the process of objectively assessing the technical merits of one thing vs another isn't new to me. With high-end audio, however, I came to realize long ago that it isn't the quantitative differences between one component vs another that matter most, it is the qualitative differences that matter more. We can talk about noise floor, THD+noise, dynamic range, etc. but in the end, I seek for my system to transport me to a different time and place.

[romaz]

Hi All

 

I’ve been playing with my bridged DC powered ASrock J1900 running W10 pro/Process Lasso/Fidelizer/minimserver set up by trying out Audiophile Optimiser for the first time. TBH I really had some reservations about how effective AO could be given my lowly MOBO and My lack of experience PC wise.

From a fresh W10 pro install.

All I can say is WOW what a nice bump up in SQ using AO has turned out to be. Silky smooth, more detail, larger soundstage, more depth, more of just about everything except grain and hash helping my SMS200 to sing very nicely. The filter options are just great and allow fine tuning of the tonal balance from D4 tube like to 1A ultra Solid State. To my ears and in my set up the filter changes are pretty easy to hear. As romaz mentioned well worth the admission fee alone.

I have ATM settled on W10/ AO Ultra/C2/Minimserver Shell (no up-sampling) set to real time Game mode with Process Lasso making for a pretty light weight server. My music is stored on NAS directly connected to the bridge which I preferred to USB HDD. No Fidelizer pro yet but that’s coming once I have a better handle on the sound that I have now.

I also run HQPlayer on another machine but that’s for later.

TBH I was a little intimidated by the AO to start with but even for a numpty like myself it’s pretty easy to get the hang of and in use

works very well. I just followed the PDF guide which is comprehensive and easy to use.

AO is just superb and works very nicely in my set up.

Great Job Phil.

And secondly.

Heartbreakingly hard to admit J but I swapped out my DIY Power supply to Sbooster 12V with IFI IDC Purifier for the SMS200. It’s so much better than my 9V DIY effort (AMB a11 ) with IDC Purifier it’s a joke. Bigger, more dynamic and even more detailed which could be just the bump up in supply voltage but I suspect not.

 

I also realise that adding Uptone’s LPS-1 could improve things still further but funds are short and it’s hard to justify the extra expense ATM TBH but maybe later once the money tree has grown a little taller J.

In my set up the SBooster is money well spent. (Even if I do have to admit that the shop bought PSU beat my own work hands down L). I also compared to the stock switcher and IFI 9V supplies and well errr no contest to my ears and in my set up.

This thread as led me to a very happy place sound wise so thanks again to all who have contributed and an extra thanks to romaz for starting this interesting ride.

It’s been fun so far.

 

 

 

Thanks for sharing your experience, Shoom. My experience with AO has thus far been very similar to yours. Also interesting to know your take on the Sbooster. I have yet to hear from someone who wasn't impressed by their supplies. While I suspect it would sound better than your DIY effort if they were both 12V supplies, I have found that with the sMS-200, 12V sounds slightly better than 9V. I have also found that 9V sounds slightly better than 7V with the mR even though it runs slightly warmer.

[romaz]

For those of you wondering if ROCK is able to use 2 or more Ethernet ports or doubting if the direct connection between the Roon server and network streamer is achievable, worry no more! I can confirm that all is working well in alpha version, in a way.

 

Here's some pictures you can refer to.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]33618[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]33619[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]33620[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]33617[/ATTACH]

 

I'll post the detail procedure later.

Whoa! Possible game changer. How does it sound?

[romaz]

Hi Romaz,

 

Wow, what a response to my post about approaching CA from opposite corners! Your response is one of best, most articulate and thoughtful posts I've ever seen on CA. We need a posting "hall of fame" button.

 

Instead of opposite corner, perhaps other end of the stick would have been a better analogy. In two years I have bought and sold 4 DACs, and have had 3 long term loaner DACs resident in the $2 to 5k price range.

 

No more, I am currently thrilled with my $550 IFI Black Label DAC playing hqplayer upsampled everything at DSD512.

 

Why? I concluded that SQ is so profoundly influenced by the PC hardware and software environment that until the PC environment was stable and sounding its best there was no way to truly validate the difference in quality of various DACs in any price range.

 

Think about the past year or so. It has only been since last January that Intel chips have been available that have the performance needed to crunch DSD512. Groundbreaking devices like the LPS-1 are only available since October 2016. Roon is less than a year old. We have seen major releases of operating systems, AO and HQplayer in the same timeframes. This is a quickly moving field and until it slows, it is tough for me to justify a major investment in a technology that could be made obsolete so quickly. So, I choose to use commodity components for my digital front end, including my DAC.

 

My analog side is Wilson and Modwright and as speaker and amplification technologies are well understood and stable the investment is easy to research and justify.

 

Sadly, someday we will see the bottom of the bottomless pit known as ComputerAudiophile sound quality. But for now I am just amazed that the innovations keep coming and that the SQ gets better and better.

 

Lastly no need to apologise for not posting your configuration. I never have.

 

Thanks again for your wonderful post.

Thank you, Larry. Over the years, as I have scoured the forums for much-needed information, I frequently came across your posts (including your posts on bridging LAN ports a few years back) and I always found them to be well-reasoned, balanced and insightful. Much respect.

 

What you say about digital is very true. While I have a firm grasp of the analog side of my chain, I don't feel that way about digital. It's just evolving so quickly. Just when I think I have everything figured out, something new comes out from nowhere and I find myself having to recalibrate my thinking. If you could only see the stockpile of digital gear and parts I have lying around, it's quite depressing, but once you hear how much better the new thing is, it's hard to unhear what you've heard. Hopefully, one day soon, I'll learn to be content with what I have but for now, I am quite amazed how simple and small changes have lead to fairly profound improvements and so it's hard to want to get off the bus just yet. There is one observation that has become quite clear, however, and that is it makes no sense to spend huge money on digital these days. Things get obsolete much too quickly and technology quickly trickles down. I believe you are wise to let the dust settle before making big changes. Now, if only I could learn the same lesson...

[romaz]

Bad clock > Better clock > Best clock

My second LPS-1 arrived today and I found myself with new found flexibility to try some different things while I await parts for my upcoming build to come in.

 

As many know, aside from this Trend Net switch that I sent in to SOtM to have its clock replaced with the sCLK-EX, I also own a Paul Pang switch with TCXO clock. As previously reported, this Trend Net with its upgraded clock readily improved upon the Paul Pang switch by a considerable margin. Since the arrival of the sCKL-EX, this Paul Pang switch has been sitting idle. With the aid of my new LPS-1, I decided to reintroduce this switch back into the "direct connection" pathway. Here is what I compared:

 

Here is my baseline setup: Mac Mini > Trend Net switch with sCLK (LPS-1) > sMS-200 Ultra (LPS-1) > dX-USB HD Ultra (SR7) >DAC

 

Configuration (1): Mac Mini > Paul Pang switch with TCXO (LPS-1) > Trend Net switch with sCLK-EX (LPS-1) > sMS-200 Ultra (LPS-1)...

Configuration (2): Mac Mini > Trend Net switch with sCLK-EX (LPS-1) > Paul Pang switch with TCXO (LPS-1) > sMS-200 Ultra (LPS-1)...

 

Once again, I have already established that the sCLK-EX is a much better clock than the TCXO. At the present time, my Mac Mini has stock clocks.

 

Findings:

 

Configuration 1:

This configuration goes from bad clock to better clock to best clock. Compared against my baseline setup, the addition of the Paul Pang switch with TCXO clock positioned before the Trend Net switch and with both powered by my new LPS-1 very nicely resulted in further improvement in SQ. It wasn't a giant improvement but was easily noticeable. Bass was stronger, separation was better, transients were cleaner, guitar plucks had a crisper staccato...nothing bad, all good. By now, I guess I shouldn't be surprised but yet I am.

 

Configuration 2:

This configuration now goes from bad clock to best clock to intermediate clock. Compared against Configuration 1, SQ for sure takes a hit. It still sounds good but there is an obvious diminishment in dynamics. Transients are slightly more diffuse and the guitar staccato is noticeably softer. Compared against baseline, it's a close call. I will need to do further listening and will probably need to blind test to convince myself but my initial inclination is that it sounds just slightly more compressed compared against baseline suggesting that this switch has now actually caused harm.

 

Just for kicks, I proceeded with a Configuration 3 even though I was pretty sure I knew what would happen.

 

Configuration 3: Mac Mini > Paul Pang (LPS-1) > Trend Net (LPS-1) > NETGEAR GS108TV2 with stock switching PSU > sMS-200 Ultra..

 

I use this Netgear switch in my home theater. It has no special clocks and as noted above, I used its stock 12V switching PSU to power it because it's all I had. Not surprisingly, there is an obvious harshness that is introduced and dynamics and liquidity are significantly compromised. No bueno.

 

CONCLUSIONS: I had previously postulated that a bad clock that follows a good clock has the potential to negate the good clock. These findings would support that theory. Without a doubt, it's best to put your best clock at the end and to avoid all bad clocks whenever possible. Once again, I am surprised that further reclocking (with good clocks) results in better and better SQ but my guess is that with each reclocking, there has to be some diminishing return. I am more optimistic now than before that replacing all pertinent clocks in my upcoming build will result in further improvement in SQ.

[romaz]

Hi Romaz,

Can you please explain what precisely do you mean by the passage in quotes here?

 

More specifically to file storage, what is giving you the best results now. The SATA adaptor to SDcards you mentioned is interesting. Did you suggest that SD cards are a better solution for storage (in terms of SQ) than the alternatives? That has been my suspicion too...

 

I'm too having a very fine SQ with the MacMini booted from SDcard with El Capitain. Moreover, I'm using a mac-to-mac connection as suggested by Superdad a few years ago. Also, my macmini is already on the best PS I can think of and I'm using Roon.

 

All those "extra things" you're using (microrendu, sms200, clocks, switch, USBoptimizer, and respective supplies) can become very expensive and a small nightmare in terms of space, cables, etc. Pardon me if I hesitate a bit... but it's a potential mess, as you'll probably agree. I have read this entire thread and one would be silly not to believe your findings, as they are very well explained and documented. But if you compare the macmini-sdcard system (the one I'm using) with that same system plus all the extras in question (apparently what you are using), do you think now it really pays off? In other words, unplug all those "extra" supplies from the wall (remove all the "extras" from the room if possible) and play the mini for a while. Now connect all the extras and listen. What happens?

 

Hi Spartan,

 

You raise very good questions. You have an excellent setup already and so as always, if you are happy with the SQ you are getting, there's no reason to do anything further.

 

As to whether a highly optimized Mac Mini setup such as yours can be improved upon by something like the mR or sMS-200, my answer is yes, absolutely. My Mac Mini setup isn't that different from yours. I am using Uptone Audio's excellent MMK just like you are which allows me to power it with my Paul Hynes SR7, the finest PSU I have personally experienced. Presently, I am running an optimized version of El Capitan off of an SD card just like you are. I understand you are using Alex's Mac-to-Mac connection method to access your music files and I have no doubt that this sounds better than streaming from a NAS but thus far, my best SQ is playback from an SD card using a Thunderbolt SD card reader from Sonnet Tech and I suspect this method of playback is at least as good as your Mac-to-Mac direct connection. Having tested and compared this further just this evening, it is superior to playback from an SSD or hard drive even though my SSD and hard drive were each powered by an LPS-1 during my comparisons. The difference isn't as prominent compared against the OS off the SD card vs the OS off an SSD or hard drive but there is definitely a quieter and less stressed quality to music playback when files are stored on an SD card which is to my preference.

 

Despite all of these optimizations, I cannot get my Mac Mini by itself to sound anywhere as good as when my Mac Mini is fronted by either the mR or sMS-200 via this direct connection. Here are some reasons why I believe this is the case:

 

1. Clocks. This is an obvious topic of interest for me right now given how dramatic the differences I am hearing with a really good clock against a bad clock. Having torn apart my second Mac Mini recently, I was able to identify at least 2 clocks that I could replace with SOtM's new sCLK-EX if I decided to stick with my Mac Mini and that would be the system clock and the LAN clock. If I chose to replace these bad clocks with SOtM's new superclock, without question, I would power this SOtM clock board with a 12V lead from another SR7 that I have on order because I have found that the quality of power to the clock to be extremely important. Now here's the problem with the Mac Mini or any PC that you can build today that utilizes any of the off-the-shelf motherboards that are commercially available. Even if I replace the main system clock (24MHz), there are many subsystems within the motherboard (SATA, USB, PCIE, video card, audio card, etc) that require independent clocking but do not operate at the 24MHz frequency of the main system clock and so what happens is that these subsystems derive their timing from sub-clocks (DPLL) that use the main clock as a master clock. Is this as good as having separate master clocks for each subsystem? No, it's a compromise but moreover, guess how these DPLLs are powered? By noisy switching regulators that all off-the-shelf motherboards utilize. With either an mR or sMS-200, much higher quality clocks are used and these clocks are powered by ultra low noise linear regulators.

 

2. Ground plane noise. In the Mac Mini or any PC, this will come from many sources including numerous switching voltage regulators, a current-hungry CPU, RAM, internal storage, various unnecessary ICs, and potentially the power supply. While the current draw of your optimized Mac Mini is pretty low compared to other PCs, it still will be higher compared against the mR or sMS-200. Powered by a 9V supply, the sMS-200 draws well below 0.5A. Powered by a 12V supply, the draw is even less and this is how I prefer to power the sMS-200 because it sounds even better this way. The point is this is why Roon strongly advocates an ethernet connection between a noisy server and a much quieter Roon endpoint because ethernet is inherently galvanically isolated and would help isolate some of this noise.

 

3. Heavy OS. Despite my efforts to optimize El Capitan, I was never able to get it to be as light weight (and therefore sound as good) as Windows with Audiophile Optimizer. The Linux OS used by either the mR or sMS-200 (which also runs off an SD card) is even lighter weight.

 

4. Impedance. The Mac Mini (or NUC) has a nice compact form factor with short signal paths but the signal paths in either the mR or sMS-200 are even shorter. Furthermore, the very fine PSU you are using to power your Mac Mini will likely not have as low an output impedance as an LPS-1 that you could use to power either an mR or sMS-200.

 

5. USB. The best way to do USB is to use a dedicated USB card (such as from SOtM or Paul Pang) with it's own high quality clock (not DPLL) and independently powered by a high quality linear PSU. This isn't possible with a Mac Mini or NUC as they have no free PCIe slots and even if it was, these USB cards don't offer galvanic isolation like ethernet does. You could use an Intona or Adnaco but to be on par with an mR or sMS-200, you would need to replace the bad clocks in these devices and even then, there's no guarantee. SOtM has apparently explored the Intona and found this device to create considerable jitter that has as much to do with the chipset used and not just a substandard clock. Of course, the soon-to-be-released Iso Regen by Uptone Audio could be the X-factor and could very well alter the landscape once again.

 

 

I'm asking this apparently redundant question because a few post ahead you said you have returned to the sdcard with elcapitain with great relief. And sometimes we travel great lengths looking for improvement to realize much later that what we had before was better. Was that (at least partially) the case?

 

By the way, what OS system are you planning to use in your future server (nice project!)

I have to say that to be able to run the OS off an SD card is huge and it is one reason I much prefer the Mac Mini to a NUC. This concept has been promoted by Paul Pang for years and with a build that I ultimately scrapped 2 years ago, I was going to use Paul's CF to SATA adapter which also incorporated his OCXO clock for my OS. And yes, it is my experience that the OS drive has a greater impact on SQ than the music drive.

 

My only problem with running El Capitan off an SD card was that despite my best efforts to optimize it, I could never get below about 115 open processes whereas with Windows, you can get down to 15-20 open processes. I thought quite possibly that an optimized Windows OS off a PCIE SSD could sound better than El Capitan off an SD card. What I found was that it both sounded better and worse. The PCIE SSD definitely added an unpleasant fatiguing harshness but Windows Server 2012R2 + AO + Process Lasso was without question a better OS than El Capitan and furthermore, I found the sound signature/digital filter options that come with AO to be invaluable. If there was a way to run Windows off an SD card in the Mac Mini, my problems would be solved but thus far, I have not figured out how to do this and neither have my IT friends at Apple.

 

With my upcoming server build, I will compare what I can and am open minded to whatever sounds best but as of now, the best OS I have heard with Roon is Window Server 2012R2 + AO in minimal server mode + Process Lasso. I am determined to run this OS off a 64GB SLC compact flash card using the following device:

 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0030D3T16/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A324BLMM6O8TAP

Unlike the Mac Mini, I will be able to power this adapter and my compact flash card using an LPS-1. It also has a clock that potentially can be replaced.

 

...is there a way, or adaptor, you have tried, that allows us to use extra SD cards (other than, of course, the SD card used for the system) for storage?

 

As you have suggested, the downside of SD card storage is limited space. They presently get as large as 512GB although 1TB SDXC cards have been announced by SanDisk and SDXC has the potential to reach 2TB. I have ordered these SD-to-SATA devices to try out although I don't know how good they will be. One device can hold 4 SDXC cards and the other can hold 10 microSD cards (up to 1.28TB of storage) and either device can be independently powered by an LPS-1.

 

4 SD SDHC SDXC MMC TF Card to SATA 2.5" SSD enclosure Adapter RAID Function WP | eBay

 

10x Micro SD TF Memory Card to SATA SSD Adapter RAID Quad 2.5" SATA Converter | eBay

[romaz]

In any case, I was not asking about the term "direct connection", but the rest of the quote : "For those of us who apply proper care and attention to our upstream components, we are rewarded for our efforts and for those of us who don't, there are sonic penalties. "

 

What I have found this "direct connection" between music server and endpoint to result in is a greater transparency not just to the recording but also to the upstream components which can be both a good thing and a bad thing. With either the mR or sMS-200 directly connected to the router, it matters far less how good (or bad) the server is. Without the router in the direct path, suddenly bad sources sound bad and good sources sound good. With this direct connection, things like an optimized OS, less noisy storage and a better power supply to the server make much more of a difference.

[romaz]

@romaz just to be clear, in your base configuration are you still using a direct connection between mac mini and sms-200? From what you wrote it looks like the mac mini and sms-200 are both connected to the Trendnet?

Yes, when I say "direct connection," I mean that the router is no longer in the path between server and endpoint. With respect to the Trendnet, it is indeed in the direct path. Without a decent clock and powered by a switching PSU, a switch in the direct path definitely negatively impacts SQ. With respect to the Trendnet which has had its clock replaced by SOtM's superclock and is powered by an LPS-1, it significantly improves SQ.

[romaz]

 

It is still amazing to me that the addition of a better clock upstream of 3 existing "best" clocks still resulted in an SQ boost!

 

I agree, Rajiv. I am surprised as well and this is the best way I know to explain it:

 

The best signal you can have is the original unfettered, unadulterated signal but as this signal goes through the signal path, it goes through repeated processing and reprocessing and with each processing, that signal must be regenerated and reclocked. When the signal from your ISP enters your internet modem, it is processed. It is processed again when the data is converted into an ethernet stream and again with every switch or FMC it encounters and again when that stream reaches your server's LAN port, and when it hits your system bus, and when it is rendered by your CPU and so on and so on. With ever regeneration and reclocking of the signal, there is potential for the signal to be harmed through the introduction of jitter through poor clocking and the introduction of substrate noise that is likely to be additive as the signal moves through the chain.

 

While this is pure conjecture, my experience would suggest that placement of a clean and accurate clock in the signal path has the potential to clean up and even repair some of the harm that has been caused but if the harm already done is significant, a single reclocking may only be able to improve it so much. A good analogy might be running a fairly clean car through a car wash vs running an off-road vehicle with caked on mud and tar through that same car wash. It may take several car washes before the off-road vehicle gets thoroughly cleaned and even with multiple washings, it may not be possible to completely clean it. This is why I have suggested that it would probably be best to avoid bad things in the signal path early on rather than having to add heroic (and expensive) fixes at the end.

 

What I wonder is if this phenomenon would hold true with more modest DACs.

 

My guess is that if your system (which would include not just your DAC but also your amp, speakers and cables) is resolving enough to reveal the benefits of this direct connection, it is probably resolving enough to reveal the benefits of better clocking. While I suspect there is more to this direct connection than just avoiding the bad clocking introduced by your router and any bad switches after the router, I suspect that has to be at least part of the reason. Of course, as this direct connection brings about even greater resolution and transparency to your system, I suspect the impact of removing bad upstream clocks or introducing reparative downstream clocks should become all the more apparent. Once I find the time, I will borrow other DACs from friends and see what kind of difference I hear but I would be surprised if I hear no difference at all.

 

With the superior clocking in place on your switch, go back to a switched instead of direct connection.

 

 

I have already done this. Using my Trend Net switch in the "direct path" as my reference, I then placed this switch just after my router and then plugged both my Mac Mini and my sMS-200 into this switch. While it did result in some improvement compared against plugging both the Mac Mini and sMS-200 straight into the router, it was quite small and definitely only a fraction of what I got with the switch in the direct path. Based on this small amount of SQ improvement, I would not find the switch upgrade to be worthwhile.

[romaz]

If you really want you can attach a PCIe card to a NUC with a riser-cable to the NUC's mini-PCIe. I have described this sometime ago for a JCAT-USB card in the JPLAY forum. I have replaced the JCAT card recently with an Intel PCIe-LAN card that is directly coupled to my SOTM200. I may not look nice (card dangling outside of my NUC fanless case) but it works.

Very cool!