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

[austinpop]

1 hour ago, pam1975 said:

will you compare the USB route vs NAA?

 

I am not sure what you're asking. I can make an educated guess that by:

• "USB route" - you mean a direct attach from a computer music player to the DAC, and by
• "NAA" - you mean an Ethernet endpoint between the computer (now a music server) and the DAC?

Just for reference, NAA technically refers to the specific case of an endpoint for the HQPlayer product, since the terms are different for Roon (Roon Ready) and DLNA (renderer).

 

But if this is what you mean, then I can't. I just don't have the investment in direct PC gear, and have never run a DAC directly from a PC/Mac.

 

Sorry.

 

My entire journey in computer audio has been with streaming and endpoints.

[austinpop]

4 minutes ago, pam1975 said:

sorry for the improper formulation but, yes this was my question

 

Thanks for your response!

 

No worries at all.

 

Maybe others here with a tX-USBultra are better equipped to compare.

[austinpop]

1 hour ago, romaz said:

 

Sorry to hear of your problems, Rajiv.  Once I figured out how to properly power my dX-USB HDultra, everything has run smoothly.  When I was first having problems, I opened everything up and the quality of workmanship I saw was first rate.  Have you tried opening up your tX-USBultra just to make sure nothing is loose?  I'm confident SOtM tested the functionality of your setup before they shipped it out to you and so if you are using the same firmware that your unit shipped with, I doubt this would be the problem unless the there is some compatibility issue between this firmware and your DAC.  Have you tried a different DAC?

 

Hi Roy,

 

Yes, they tested for at least a week before sending it back, so whatever it is, it must be elusive.

 

I'm very leery of opening up the cases, especially with the clock wires to watch. I'll do it as a last resort, but first want to eliminate other hypotheses. As I said, everything works great, except for these pauses every few minutes.

 

Regarding firmware, I'm sure I was at v3.6 when I sent it in, since 3.7 came out while it was with them.

 

Sad to say, I have no alternate DACs to try... but hang on, I could use my AQ Dragonfly Black. OK - I will add this to the list to try...

[austinpop]

53 minutes ago, romaz said:

 

Absolutely no harm will come to opening the chassis.  In fact, I'm fairly certain SOtM will ask you to do it as they asked me to do the same.  

 

Also, the clock cables are sturdier than you think.

 

Understood. 

 

BTW - it's definitely the modded sMS-200. I just ran it direct USB to the DAC, although the tX-USBultra was of course providing the clock. Even in this use case, the problem persists. It's as if the Roon Core momentarily loses contact with the endpoint (sMS-200), and thus stops the stream.

 

Will keep you posted, as the earliest I'll hear from SOtM is in 48 hours (their Monday morning).

[austinpop]

2 hours ago, tapatrick said:

 

 

Austinpop

interesting to hear your problems as I'm having similar issue with irregular stops in playback. Sometimes this is maddening and other times it's only a few times a day.  

 

I have different set up from you but wondering if there are similarities causing the issue. I have an Antipodes DXe >data only USB out> To Wavio USB to Spdif converter board with the 5v supplied by LPS-1>Aqua La Voce DAC. Sound is stunning as Wavio has great isolation, clock and high quality components. 

 

I have been trying to pin down where the problem lies which is not easy. Initially thought it was a network or Tidal issue but now seems to lie either with corrupt Antipodes software or Roon core glitch. Currently having my music server diagnosed. 

 

Hi @tapatrick

 

That is most interesting. What versions of Roon are you on? My setup has the following versions:

1. Roon Core: Build 223
2. Roon app (iOS, W10, Mac): Build 223
3. Roon Ready on sMS-200: 1.1.16
4. sMS-200: v-0.3.7

Also, I found this on the SOtM site: https://www.sotm-audio.com/sotmwp/english/portfolio-item/sms-200/#toggle-id-6

 

Based on this, I upped the Buffer Duration and Resync Delay on the Roon Ready config to 0.1 and 0.5 respectively (the max values). I also added a Resync Delay of 2000ms in the device settings from the Roon Core side.

 

None of these helped.

 

What is even more peculiar is that whereas previously, my failure case was a momentary pause, from which I could resume by hitting Play again, today the sMS-200 disappears completely from the Roon GUI. I see the "select audio zone" button, and the only way to recover is to restart my Ultra stack.

 

Very peculiar.

[austinpop]

7 minutes ago, HeeBroG said:

I think it might be sMS-200: v-0.3.7. 

My system has been very stable running Daphile until I upgraded the firmware. 

Exactly the same issue with erratic pauses in play. Sometimes play would restart after a few seconds; sometimes I needed to reboot the sMS-200. 

It is not my network because I play files for a locally attached USB ssd and use a direct Ethernet connection from my Macmini to SMS-200. 

If you made a backup of the SD CARD in SMS-200 before the upgrade you could perhaps revert to v-0.3.6 and see if the problem resolves. 

 

Ahhh - very interesting!

 

Sadly I did not think to make a backup of 3.6. Actually, I think SOtM upgraded my unit to 3.7 while it was with them. For future reference - anybody have instructions on how to make a backup of the sMS-200 SD Card?

 

BTW - I would love for this to be a software issue. Those can be fixed without shipping my units back to Korea!

[austinpop]

I just completed a marathon listening session with my SOtM Ultra stack, and I will post my impressions in two parts. The first part will address the full stack - what I affectionately call the Full Monte, or the Ultra Trifecta - and the second with experiments where I remove certain parts of the chain.

 

I posted a pictorial depiction of the full monte a few posts ago, here.

 

While my sMS-200 was with SOtM for these mods, I had reacquainted myself with, and was thoroughly enjoying, my Aries Mini chain. In and of itself, when listening to this chain, it was hard to see how it could be improved. 

 

Well, it can. Big-time!

 

Right now, I am listening to the full monte - modded switch, modded sMS-200, and tX-USBultra. Soon, I will get to some of the incremental configurations.

 

In my previous review of the sMS-200 (stock), I had concluded that the sMS-200 sounded better than the Aries Mini and the microRendu, but the difference, while significant, was not huge.

 

Now with the Ultra trifecta, I cannot help but agree with @romaz that this takes the sound quality to a whole different zipcode. But what does that mean, really? I'll try to break it down. When I do listening impressions, I tend to use both a set of known "demo" tracks, but to keep it fresh and interesting, I also use whatever I am currently listening to and enjoying, a long as it's a sufficiently high quality recording. 

 

I'll describe each aspect of SQ improvement, with musical examples where I can.

1. Massed instruments:
   • The opening of the Sibelius 6th symphony has a gorgeous string passage. Previously, I've experienced these massed strings as a single amalgam of sound. Now, it's as if a lens snapped into focus, and I perceive the presence of each violin in the whole. This is very hard to describe.
     
     
      
2. Instrument dimensionality: 
   • Keeping the same "increased lens focus" analogy - instruments are now perceived to inhabit a 3-dimensional space - you can hear not just the strings or the hammers, but subtle microcues that tell the ear that this cello or bassoon or whatever has a shape and is producing sound as a whole.
      
3. Piano
   • Listening the Yevgeny Sudbin's Beethoven Piano Concerto 5, I've never heard the piano sound so organically whole. Or the beginning of Supertramp's Gone Hollywood. There is incredible detail around each hammer striking the string. Again - the word that comes to mind is dimensionality.
     
     
     
     
      
4. Voices
   • I just rediscovered Haydn's Creation (Die Schöpfung) in my collection after many years. Listening to "Von deiner Gut, o Herr und Gott," which is a duet of a soprano and baritone (depicting Adam and Eve), the sheer detail in each singer's voice is just astonishing! And this is "just" a Redbook recording. Again, it comes down to not just the tone of the voice, but the palpability of a real singer, with all the microcues from their nasal and chest cavities, hearing them take breaths between phrases, etc.
     
     BTW - I am neither religious, nor do I speak German, but I still love this piece!
     
     
      
5. Image size
   • The opening of Sibelius Symphony No. 5 has these soaring French horns. With the Ultra stack, they pretty much lift you off your chair and set you afloat. More generally, the sense of space occupied by a large orchestra - did I mention Sibelius and Mahler and big favorites of mine - is rendered better than before.
     
     
      
6. Air
   • I think of this in the context of many instruments paying in unison. The ease with which you can place instruments that are physically close together in their respective positions in the image is one feature. Another is easily distinguishing between instruments that sound very similar. My favorite test is when the flute, oboe, and clarinet play the same notes together. Can you tell them apart? Well, it was much easier with the Ultra stack.
      
7. Percussion
   • B&W did a series of Binaural recordings called Accidental Powercut, that they released a few years ago on their Society of Sound service. One of the tracks on Accidental Powercut 3 is Talvin Singh - Track 2. This is a Hindustani classical duet with a sarod (or is it sitar?) and tablas. The complexity of tabla playing is the variety of ways percussion actually happens - with the fingertips, with the whole finger, with the palm, and many more. Here again, the realism and ease with which you hear the different ways the table player (Talvin Singh?) strikes the membrane of the tablas is astounding.
     
     
      
   • Another example is the same track I referenced above from Haydn's Creation. Between minutes 2 and 3, there is a series of soft tympani rolls, that previously were perceived as just a set of staccato sounds. Now, even though they are played quite softly, they have an incredible texture, and you can hear the shape of the tympanum, and the texture of the mallet striking the skin of the tympanum. Incredible.

 

In conclusion - I can hardly believe that such SQ differences can be found within the digital domain, between the same Roon Core and the same DAC. 

 

In the next post, I'll talk about some of the incremental configurations. Stay tuned.

[austinpop]

3 minutes ago, mozes said:

Thanks for a great review and especially for encouraging me to try listening to some classical pieces. I have almost zero classical music, the only exception is Beethoven Symphony 5  (DXD).

I also reached the same conclusion that there are massive improvements to be harvested in the digital domain both at the hardware and software level. Often these improvements can be achieved with no investment or with modest investments. Of course, the latest tweaks by SOTM are relatively expensive and don't meet this criteria but the boost in SQ is worth it to me.

 

Thanks!

 

Most of the pieces I referenced are readily  accessed on Tidal, so feel free to try them out.

[austinpop]

2 hours ago, ElviaCaprice said:

Thanks Austinpop,

What I would like to know, if you dropped all the Ethernet components and went straight server usb no 5V to tX-usb ultra to DAC.  How does it sound?

 

I just answered this question a couple days ago here: https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/30376-a-novel-way-to-massively-improve-the-sq-of-the-sms-200-and-microrendu/?do=findComment&comment=659401

 

 

Short answer - no, I can't do this comparison in a meaningful way.

[austinpop]

My Ultra Trifecta Study Part 2: More Experiments

 

Having baselined the full ultra stack, shown below, I now went back to answer some of my own burning questions. I'll address them in no particular order.

 

1. Look Ma, no USB galvanic isolation!
   
   Jokes aside, one consequence of going from my old stack to my new stack was the loss of the Intona, that potentially was blocking leakage currents on the USB signal path. My new chain has isolation from the AC mains via the LPS-1 PSUs, but was I still leaving something on the table due to the lack of GI from the Intona?
   
   So I added back the Intona between the sMS-200 and the tX-USBultra. Result: not good. Remember my "snap into focus" analogy? Well, this was the opposite. The sound became more recessed, the image shrunk, and it sounded subjectively almost woolly in comparison.
   
   Now remember - there are two competing effects at play here. Potentially the Intona blocks leakage currents via its isolation, but at the expense of signal integrity, due to higher jitter and a poorer clock than the sCLK-EX.
   
   Whatever the reason, the equation comes out in favor of "no Intona."
   
   I am very curious to find out whether the ISO-Regen upstream of the tX-USBultra produces a net further improvement. I will wait to hear how that turns out for @romaz, @mozes, and others. I was so itching to pre-order it, but knowing these folks would be able to evaluate it first gave me the strength to resist. That - and my overheated credit card!
    
2. Are the ultra components additive?
   
   As many of you who've been following this thread know, my entire project with the Ultra chain was inspired by Roy's original experiments in this area. Roy's premise was that by optimally using the clock taps from the sCLK-EX board resident in the tX-USBultra, you would get a chain of 3 components with the best possible clock immediately upstream of the DAC. Moreover, he found the effect of these 3 components in series was cumulative, with each raising SQ further.
   
   In my setup, I decided to test this finding for myself using a subtractive approach. Having heard, and baselined the SQ of the full trifecta, I now selectively removed components and evaluated the impact on the SQ.
   
   Cutting to the chase, everything Roy described, holds for me too.
   
   I first removed the tX from the path. I then removed the switch from the path. With each step, something was lost. The first attribute was image size. Remember my French horn metaphor from my main review? Well, with each step it seemed the French horns ability to set you afloat diminished, and it sounded smaller.
   
   The second aspect was focus and dimensionality. The ability to disambiguate instruments playing together, and the palpable texture of each instrument was diminished with each step.

I know many of you will want to know how the sMS-200 "ultra" sounds relative to the sMS-200 stock? Since I did not have a stock sMS-200 on hand, and can only rely on memory, I really can't answer that, other than to say - better.

 

But all in all, I am incredibly pleased with my investment in the Ultra stack. Many, many thanks go to @romaz for his trailblazing efforts! While this stack is not cheap, I am astounded how much better my system is sounding without changing either the DAC or anything in the analog chain!

[austinpop]

17 minutes ago, greenleo said:

Hi Austinpop,

 

Have you mR as well?  If so what is the SQ of

mR followed by tx Ultra vs 200 Ultra?

 

Sadly, no. The one I had for my last comparo was a loan that has since gone back to the original owner.

 

I may be able to get my hands on one from a local CAer, but no promises. 

 

17 minutes ago, greenleo said:

For your subtractive approach, which affects the SQ more, removing the switch or removing the to Ultra?

 

Thank you.

 

That's a tough one. A lot more listening is required. I'll get back to you.

 

But I see where you're going - or could. What if you got only the upcoming sMS-200ultra with a modded switch? How much would you be leaving on the table without an additional, expensive tX-USBultra?

[austinpop]

11 minutes ago, ChrisG said:

I guess I'm not totally surprised by this result since SOtM deliberately avoids galvanic isolation. And, FWIW, Mike Moffit at Schiit at some very strong opinions about its "worth" on his thread over at HF. I'd link to it, but since they did that shitty website "upgrade" you can't search a thread. #fail

 

SOtM has told me that they have as yet not found a GI solution that didn't degrade jitter considerably.

 

Quote

 BTW, what switch did you have SOtM upgrade and what do they put in it? Thanks

 

Zyxel GS108b v3.

 

They changed 2 regulators to linear regulators that could handle 7V input - sorry I don't have details on exactly which. They also replaced a capacitor.

 

And of course, clocked from the sCLK-EX.

[austinpop]

2 hours ago, ElviaCaprice said:

I don't think you can pre-judge galvanic isolations worth by the Intona.  Purely because of it's poor clocking it's not a good candidate.  But for Chord DAC's with galvanic isolation, I can say it's extremely effective.  Remember, Romaz has galvanic isolation in the DAVE at the end of his chain.  We will see what the ISO Regen brings to the table. 

Humm, has me thinking it might be worth replacing that clock in the ISO Regen to the sCLK-EX.  Might make the ISO Regen the most effective component over any of the Ultras.   Would be easy to do, having modified the Regen before.

 

I'm not sure you understood my experiment or its intent. Or - I may not have explained it well. So let me try. Here is some key background:

• In my previous setup, I used the following:
  
  In this setup, I had found consistently that the Intona improved the sound quality. So the implication was that in some way, shape, or form, GI as implemented in the Intona was beneficial in my specific system. The question then was that when I moved to the Ultra chain, without GI in my USB path, was I allowing some leakage current (and loss of SQ) back into my setup, even if the net effect was an improvement in SQ?
   
• Since Roy's DAC - the DAVE - has galvanic isolation, was he perhaps less dependent on an Intona-like component in the USB chain than me, since my DAC, the Codex, doesn't claim any galvanic isolation, to the best of my knowledge.

So bearing these two factors in mind, perhaps the reason for my experiment (adding the Intona in the chain) is clearer now?

[austinpop]

Ultra Trifecta Study Part 3: "I'm sorry I can't do that, DAVE"

 

Here are the results of a very interesting afternoon of critical listening, in the company of fellow CA'er Eric, aka @limniscate, who came bearing gifts. He brought his microRendu/LPS-1 and oh, by the way, a loaner Chord DAVE DAC. WHAT!

 

We listened to the trifecta with each component - the switch, the sMS-200 "ultra" and the tX-USBultra powered with its own LPS-1. After some baseline listening with the trifecta, we did the following experiments:

1. Break apart the trifecta, start with "just" the sMS-200 "ultra", and then evaluate the incremental impact of:
   • The tX-USBultra: The tX-USBultra added a level of refinement in the mids and highs, and some real solidity and oomph on the low end
   • The modded switch: This one just blew us away! It only took us 15 secs of listening before we looked at each other in amazement. The switch just opens up the image immensely.
     Overall comments: In terms of impact, the effects of the two are similar in magnitude, but complementary in nature. While we expected the tX to have an impact, we were just astounded by the effect of the switch. I don't know what stroke of genius impelled Roy to try this, but he is really on to something here. 
      
2. Swap out the sMS-200 "ultra" with the mR in the trifecta and compare. Specifically, we kept the trifecta in place, but replaced the sMS-200 and added in the mR
   
   Result: There was a startling drop in quality! This was rather surprising, as in the past we've found the sMS-200 and the mR to be quite close. What was even more disconcerting was the fact that despite the fact that we still had the sCLK-EX switch and tX-USBultra in the chain, the insertion of the mR seemed to collapse the image size, and reduce the focus and resolution. This lends credence to Roy's theory that the greatest benefits accrue when you cascade only the best clocks before the DAC. Clearly in the chain
              modded switch (with sCLK-EX)->mR->tX-USBultra (sCLK-EX), the clock quality is:
              best > good > best, and
   the lower quality clock in the mR seems to break the chain in some way.
   
   This does not bode well for the ISO-Regen in the path as well, but it will be most interesting to see how this pans out with Roy's and @mozes's experiments.
    
3. Compare the DAVE ($12k) with the Codex ($1.8k) - gulp!
   Result: The DAVE is clearly better. I found this to be more evident than Eric did.  We experimented with some settings on the DAVE, settling on DSD+ and HF Filter ON. I felt the DAVE just presented another layer of detail and clarity than the Codex. Eric felt the impact of the switch in the trifecta was at least as significant as the DAVE. We both agreed the effect of the SOtM stack was more dramatic than the the DAC difference between the Codex and the DAVE, which is notable in itself!
   
   Both of us couldn't justify the 6.5x difference in cost, but there is no denying the quality of the DAVE. Oh - to be rich!!

Overall, we were blown away by the additive effects of the Ultra trifecta. I would be hard pressed to pick a subset, but from a cost perspective, I could certainly recommend an sMS-200ultra with a modded switch, although the benefits of the full stack are undeniable and very compelling!

[austinpop]

43 minutes ago, Always.Learning said:

 

Fascinating stuff, Rajiv. As the owner of a Chord DAVE, I'm surprised at @limniscate's finding that his DAVE had the least amount of impact. I migrated from an Ayre QB-9 DSD to a DAVE and found the delta quite large. I also owned a Schiit Yggy for a brief spell and found it inferior to both the Ayre and DAVE. For what it's worth, I think the consensus among DAVE owners is that it really excels with PCM and DSD is a clear second best. Certainly the designer, Rob Watts, prefers PCM. So you might try setting it to PCM in your next evaluation. 

 

In any event, it's exciting to hear that a lowly modded switch can have the impact you heard. I currently run a switch modded by Paul Pang with a TXCO clock between my server and sMS-200. I wonder if SOtM would be willing to modify it? If not, it's probably worth having them modify another switch based on these results (and pending the results you hear on the Maggie speaker system). 

 

If you have some recommended tunings on the DAVE, please do let us know.

 

A lot of my collection is DSD64, and we definitely found the SQ improved by switching from the PCM+ to the DSD+ mode. But please note - neither of us know the DAVE well at all, so it's possible we may not be using it optimally.

 

Please advise the best settings for:

• DSD64 tracks
• 24-bit 48/96/192 PCM

We'll be doing another sessions's at Eric's later this week.

[austinpop]

24 minutes ago, ElviaCaprice said:

That's no problem, would be nice if you could disconnect the 5V vbus, since the tX-USB Ultra doesn't need it.  In fact give us a heads up between mRendu only vs. tX-USB Ultra only, both with DAVE.  Would be very interesting.  Do not use the upgraded switch with clocking.

Add the sms-200 ultra in the mix only, please, again no extra upgraded clock components!!

This would clarify if 1 Ex clock sotm component USB only vs. Ethernet renderer no upgraded clock.vs sms-200 Ultra only.

 

Fantastic, this has never been done, would answer a lot of question and bring up some new ones!!!  With the DAVE is perfect, because the question of galvanic isolation is covered.  It's a fair fight.

 

Interesting thoughts. We'll see if we can do these at @limniscate. His Magnepan setup is amazing.

 

BTW - I forgot to mention that we swapped out my normal Curious 0.2m cable to the DACs with a Lightspeed 2G dual-headed cable. It worked perfectly with the 2 ports on the tX. We did not have time to try a cable comparison, but the Lightspeed 2G was certainly sounding good!

[austinpop]

BTW - does the DAVE handle native DSD over USB? When it came up on both the mR and the sMS-200, it showed up as a DoP device, so we decided to leave it as is, as we didn't want to waste time researching.

 

Again, I may be a bit unusual in that a lot of my collection is DSD64, so I tend to listen more to DSD music than PCM.

 

Also, we were not upsampling at all - just passing through the native resolution.

[austinpop]

We're not doing conversion - at least not intentionally. Here is what the DAVE manual says:

 

DSD+ or PCM+ Mode

Dave has two menu options specifically tailored for PCM or DSD playback. You can play both PCM and
DSD music using either mode, but each one is specifically optimised for a particular format. In order
to cycle between each mode please highlight the segment, typically by pressing the down button, and
then either press the left or right button for two seconds.

 

PCM+ - Use this for PCM playback up to 768KHz. DSD playback up to DSD256 is also supported but
it is decimated and not optimised in this mode.

 

DSD+ - Use this for DSD64, 128, and 256 (single, dual and quad speed) playback. There is no
decimation. PCM can still be played and this mode is ideal for streaming video with audio as it has a
lower delay.

 

Based on this, we felt DSD+ was the safest mode to run in. I guess we could toggle to PCM+ every time we switched to a PCM track, but we didn't do that.

[austinpop]

Just now, ElviaCaprice said:

Not really, I think DAVE can receive the DSD natively but it still changes it to PCM, so its not NOS DAC.

 

That's 2 Qute. 

 

Sorry. 

[austinpop]

40 minutes ago, Always.Learning said:

I would just recommend that, as the manual makes clear, use the PCM setting for PCM recordings and the DSD setting for DSD recordings. But I don't think DAVE does DSD in true native form, and I think you should at least listen to a few PCM recordings when doing your comparisons. As ElviaCaprice said, Chord dacs are best known for great PCM playback. You don't need to worry about upsampling options or filters; DAVE does all that internally. 

 

I assume you were listening to your headphones via DAVE's headphone out? Or were you sending the signal via interconnects to your Cavalli headphone amp? If the latter, then you are no doubt losing some transparency. DAVE's headphone out simply grabs the signal that comes straight from the dac; there is no separate headphone amplification stage. This is the purest, most transparent way to listen to DAVE with headphones. 

 

Regarding the HF filter on DAVE, I prefer to leave it on. I personally don't think it makes a significant difference.

 

Finally, you should make sure that when you are using DAVE on speakers (as opposed to headphones), the Crossfeed setting is set to zero. The Crossfeed setting appears only when headphones are plugged in, but once it is set, it remains in effect even when listening to speakers. If you happen to leave the setting on when listening to speakers, you will get crosstalk on your stereo channels, which tends to muddy the sound and degrade the soundstage. 

 

I'm looking forward to the reports from your speaker-based listening session. 

 

 

 

Ok thanks.

 

We listened to a mix of DSD and PCM tracks.

 

No, we didn't use the HA on the DAVE, just fed via balanced XLR to the Cavalli. I would seriously doubt the DAVE HA could match the Cavalli, but in any event, the intent was to only switch DACs while holding everything else constant.

[austinpop]

4 minutes ago, Always.Learning said:

I understand that it would make sense to go with what you know and that it made sense to use the Cavalli when comparing DACs. 

 

And I know the Cavalli is a great headphone amp. But if the DAVE makes another appearance in your home, or you bring your headphones to lemniscate's home, you MUST listen to DAVE's headphone out. I think you will be pleasantly surprised at just how transparent the music is.

 

Roy (Romaz) and many others have reached this same conclusion--i.e., that DAVE is basically the most transparent headphone amp on the planet--on the insanely long Chord DAVE thread on head-fi. 

 

Ok cool, I'll give it a shot if I can. I'll need to check if it has a balanced 4-pin XLR headphone output.

 

I must say, the only other time I'd heard the DAVE was at a CanJam, and I'll be honest - it really didn't impress. But CanJam's are noisy suboptimal environments. 

 

So it was good to hear it in my own setup. 

[austinpop]

I peeked at the DAVE thread on head-fi, and - hoo, boy - quite a minefield. Let's definitely not bring that discussion here.

 

Suffice it to say that it appears to be an amazing DAC. I would need to spend way longer to get the full measure of it. 

 

Let's focus this discussion to what this thread is about - Roy's incredible trailblazing findings. What I can say is that the improvements we heard with the sub-$2k Ultra trifecta was way more dramatic than the improvement we heard going from the Codex to the DAVE DAC. No judgements - this is just what 2 of us both heard.

 

Which I think should be great news, as only a tiny fraction of us are in the market for a $12k DAC, but it is heartening that even more dramatic improvements can be realized with a fraction of the investment upstream of the DAC in this fashion!

[austinpop]

3 hours ago, mozes said:

Very interesting findings @austinpop, happy that the ultra trifecta works so well for you.

In my system, I expect that the ISO-Regen will make a positive impact as I don't have the SOTM clock in front of it. In my chain, I only have the tX with the sCLK-EX, so probably there is more potential for the ISO-Regen than in my system.

 

Do you connect the SMS-200 ultra directly as recommended in this thread, if this is the case then the switch is adding a lot of improvement even in the direct mode

 

 

Yes, it is direct - in the sense that the music server is bridged, and the direct connection from the bridge is going into the Zyxel (modded) switch, along with the sMS-200 "ultra."

 

In my simplistic way of thinking, this "ultra" switch's role is nothing but an Ethernet "regen" with the ultra clock.

[austinpop]

9 hours ago, romaz said:

Also, it remains to be seen at what point does adding more clocks no longer make a significant difference and will replacing all the bad clocks in a motherboard require as many reparative downstream devices.

 

Yes, this is a huge are of interest now, and we eagerly await your findings.

 

I had arbitrarily assumed that - going upstream from the DAC - each successive clock would have a lower effect, to the point of diminishing returns. Instead, my findings with the complementary nature of the effect of the tX-USBultra and the modded switch have me really wondering what the effect of better clocks further upstream will be.

 

Can't wait to find out! 

 

9 hours ago, romaz said:

 

For those looking for high value, as Rajiv has also found, a cheap switch thrown in can make a huge difference.  Perhaps, the MVP of the group given how its low cost is the switch.  I'm thinking that an sMS-200 Ultra with 2 switches could be a better value than an sMS-200 Ultra, tX-USB HD and switch.

 

Intriguing thought. I'd be surprised if SOtM aren't already working on a switch in their product portfolio.

 

9 hours ago, romaz said:

 

Just a couple of comments...

 

First, I'm not sure anyone yet knows just how good the clock implementation in the ISO Regen is compared against SOtM's new clock and so no assumptions should be made.  

...

 

I guess we'll see soon enough but I love having all these great options.

 

I could not agree more!

[austinpop]

1 hour ago, ChrisG said:

It's pretty straight forward - PCM+ for PCM, DSD+ for DSD...oh, and make sure you have the HF on

 

OK, OK, now all you DAVE-heads™ - it's a technical term - have me really intrigued. 

 

I'm now motivated enough to schlep my Cavalli LAu over to Eric's and test out the amazing headphone amp on the DAVE. I'm excited to find out how it sounds, although sadly I'll have to revert to the stock single-ended cables on my HD800, as - best I can tell - DAVE-o has no balanced headphone out.

 

Points about DSD+, PCM+, and crossfeed duly noted.