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

[austinpop]

3 hours ago, lmitche said:

It would be good to know not only the OS but also the playback software configuration used in your experiment.

 

Hi Larry,

 

Sure. I was running Euphony OS 20200316 in RAM Root, with Stylus as the player. Buffering and caching flags were On.

 

3 hours ago, lmitche said:

I do wish that we knew what is going on here.

Completely agree.

[davide256]

3 hours ago, lmitche said:

It would be good to know not only the OS but also the playback software configuration used in your experiment.

 

Your cpu frequency observations may only be relevant for this one software configuration.

 

I have tried Euphony three times in the past year in many different configurations and do not hear anything that beats stripped down Audiolinux running Roon. During playback idle times are 99.7% and cpu temps in mid 40s C on an 8 core Ryzen 2700 with passive cooling. Turbo mode is disabled and frequency floats between 1.5 and 3.2 ghz.

 

SQ is so good I'm not compelled to spend a cent on further exploratory endeavors. I do wish that we knew what is going on here.

 

Your profile audio system link points to your knucklehead audio link, which is a bit disappointing since you have no system information there.... you are providing a data point

with no  axis's to understand what scale you are measuring on. Can you correct?

[lmitche]

20 minutes ago, davide256 said:

Your profile audio system link points to your knucklehead audio link, which is a bit disappointing since you have no system information there.... you are providing a data point

with no  axis's to understand what scale you are measuring on. Can you correct?

No, I can't as things change too often.

[bodiebill]

7 hours ago, Nenon said:

That's part of the challenge. There is no good quality power supply on the market that I know of that can adequately power up this beast. There is no passive cooling chassis that is compatible with the FCLGA3647 socket, and you have two of them. There is no passive cooling chassis where this motherboard would fit in without drilling. It is very difficult to find good quality industrial RDIMM RAM, so that's a custom order. I am doing custom CPU heatsinks and custom cooling pipes, custom LPS, etc. etc. The list goes on and on. 

 

Somewhat confused. How do you and austinpop get such good results in what I understand to be a single-PC setup without a good powerful LPS?

 

My current (satisfying) setup is dual PC with

 

- HQPe server: ASRock Z390M-ITX/AC, Intel Core i7-7900K (95W TDP), 2x Apacer DDR4 RAM 2666MHz 8GB, JCAT net card FEMTO, Seasonic 400W fanless platinum nonlinar PSU

and

- NAA endpoint: Supermicro X11SAE-M, Intel Core i3-6100T (35W TDP), 2x Apacer 4GB ECC DDR4 2666MHz (wide temperature), HDPlex 800W DC-ATX converter, Paul Hynes SR4 19V/2A LPSU

 

When I go single PC by connecting the server directly to the ISO Regen and Denafrips Terminator DAC, the sound becomes harsh and digital again.

 

Maybe this could only be done succesfully with the likes of SR7?

 

 

[Nenon]

2 hours ago, bodiebill said:

Somewhat confused. How do you and austinpop get such good results in what I understand to be a single-PC setup without a good powerful LPS?

 

Without a good powerful LPS? I think you got this part wrong... I am using an excellent multi-rail LPS, which is a combination of Sean Jacobs DC3, DC4, and his latest high current design. It's as good as it gets and costs a small fortune. Haven't had a chance to compare to a custom DR SR7 but will do one day. The power supply is the most important single component in a digital source. 

 

However, I think there is a fundamental difference in the way you tweak an upsampling system than what austinpop and I do with Euphony/Stylus. Please note the screenshot I have posted earlier - 2 CPUs / 20 cores / 40 threads. Two of the 40 threads are utilizing 2% CPU, two are utilizing 1% CPU, and 36 are at 0%. That's what makes Euphony sounds so good in my case.  Assigning processes to specific cores gives you a high level of isolation. Combine this with the extremely underutilized resources that are literally waiting for what to do and a world class LPS, and all the caching, playing from RAM, etc. in Euphony/Stylus, and the result is incredible. 

 

Add HQPlayer to the picture and that changes everything. HQPlayer needs a lot more processing power and keeps your CPUs busy. That generates a lot of noise that would eventually make its way to your DAC. Using a two-box solution in this case helps isolating some of that CPU noise. But that comes with its own complexities and downsides. What is important is the net result at the end. 

 

And for the net result you have to look at the entire chain when you design a digital source - from the file you are playing all the way to the analog output. That is a complex chain with even more complex interactions between the various components that includes hardware, software, power supplies, cables, the interface with the DAC, etc. Everything needs to be taken under account.

 

I typically start with the DAC and go upstream from there. Some DACs benefit a lot from upsampling. For those DACs you have to decide if upsampling with all the challenges you need to address is worth. My DAC does not benefit from upsampling, which makes this decision much easier. I owed a Denafrips Terminator DAC in 2018 but my source was not at that level at the time, so it's hard to comment on this particular DAC. I was happy with this DAC the first week only and then I realised it's not to my taste. But obviously there are a lot of considerations to make when you are deciding if you want to upsample in software or not. That's usually my first and biggest decision. Then you need to take other factors into account. Are you streaming online music? Or are you playing local files? If streaming online, your network needs special attention - cable modems, routers, VLANs, switches, power supplies for all your network devices, power cables, vibration isolation, ethernet cables, etc. This is all part of your digital source. If you are playing local files, the size of your music collection plus room for growth matters. You have to determine what type of storage you would be using. You need to decide if you are okay with a more simple player like Stylus or you need the sophisticated interface of Roon.  

 

And here is an example of interaction. If:

a. You are streaming from the Internet and get your network sorted out; and

b. You are okay with the Stylus player, that's running in ramroot and caching all the music before playing; then

You don't need to install internal storage for your local music. You don't need USB drives, SSDs, or HDDs that would generate additional noise in your computer. You can install a NAS on your network, and that would most likely give you the best results. Obviously you need to boot the OS to RAM from somewhere but that is another topic. 

But if you change just one of these variables, things can go downhill. For example, let's say you do all that and then you decide to switch from Stylus to Roon (a variable changed). In that case, playing local music from a NAS may not be the best solution for you. Roon does not cache your entire track/album to RAM before it starts playing. It would use a lot more network and other I/O activity, which would generate more noise that may be audible. I mean network activity by itself generates audible noise. Also, Roon uses more hardware resources. So, in that case, if you switch to Roon, a local PCIe NVME storage might be a better solution. 

 

This is just a very simple illustration of interaction between software and hardware. Everything matters and everything needs to be considered. I can go into a lot more complex interaction examples but it would take me hours to write it down.

 

@bodiebill I can't tell exactly why one box solution with Euphony did not work for you. But looking at your two boxes - I don't see any of them as suitable for one-box Euphony solution. Your HQPe server does not have good and clean power. Your NAA endpoint is not very powerful. It seems like you are taking the USB output from your motherboard, which is not something I've had good results with (even if you use isoRegen). Something like the JCAT USB XE card powered by a really really good LPS would help a lot. But you also need a powerful server with very clean power. And different motherboards / different CPUs sound different, so you have to make the right component choices too.

I don't know the exact details of what you have done, but it almost seems like you have designed a good HQPe-based two box solution and just tried to put Euphony one of the boxes and eliminated the other. It does not work that way I am afraid. You would have much better results considering all the variables and designing your digital source to tailor your specific requirements. That's what DIY is all about. I am not surprised your two-box solution sounds better. 

 

 

[Johnseye]

55 minutes ago, Nenon said:

 

Without a good powerful LPS? I think you got this part wrong... I am using an excellent multi-rail LPS, which is a combination of Sean Jacobs DC3, DC4, and his latest high current design. It's as good as it gets and costs a small fortune. Haven't had a chance to compare to a custom DR SR7 but will do one day. The power supply is the most important single component in a digital source. 

 

However, I think there is a fundamental difference in the way you tweak an upsampling system than what austinpop and I do with Euphony/Stylus. Please note the screenshot I have posted earlier - 2 CPUs / 20 cores / 40 threads. Two of the 40 threads are utilizing 2% CPU, two are utilizing 1% CPU, and 36 are at 0%. That's what makes Euphony sounds so good in my case.  Assigning processes to specific cores gives you a high level of isolation. Combine this with the extremely underutilized resources that are literally waiting for what to do and a world class LPS, and all the caching, playing from RAM, etc. in Euphony/Stylus, and the result is incredible. 

 

Add HQPlayer to the picture and that changes everything. HQPlayer needs a lot more processing power and keeps your CPUs busy. That generates a lot of noise that would eventually make its way to your DAC. Using a two-box solution in this case helps isolating some of that CPU noise. But that comes with its own complexities and downsides. What is important is the net result at the end. 

 

And for the net result you have to look at the entire chain when you design a digital source - from the file you are playing all the way to the analog output. That is a complex chain with even more complex interactions between the various components that includes hardware, software, power supplies, cables, the interface with the DAC, etc. Everything needs to be taken under account.

 

I typically start with the DAC and go upstream from there. Some DACs benefit a lot from upsampling. For those DACs you have to decide if upsampling with all the challenges you need to address is worth. My DAC does not benefit from upsampling, which makes this decision much easier. I owed a Denafrips Terminator DAC in 2018 but my source was not at that level at the time, so it's hard to comment on this particular DAC. I was happy with this DAC the first week only and then I realised it's not to my taste. But obviously there are a lot of considerations to make when you are deciding if you want to upsample in software or not. That's usually my first and biggest decision. Then you need to take other factors into account. Are you streaming online music? Or are you playing local files? If streaming online, your network needs special attention - cable modems, routers, VLANs, switches, power supplies for all your network devices, power cables, vibration isolation, ethernet cables, etc. This is all part of your digital source. If you are playing local files, the size of your music collection plus room for growth matters. You have to determine what type of storage you would be using. You need to decide if you are okay with a more simple player like Stylus or you need the sophisticated interface of Roon.  

 

And here is an example of interaction. If:

a. You are streaming from the Internet and get your network sorted out; and

b. You are okay with the Stylus player, that's running in ramroot and caching all the music before playing; then

You don't need to install internal storage for your local music. You don't need USB drives, SSDs, or HDDs that would generate additional noise in your computer. You can install a NAS on your network, and that would most likely give you the best results. Obviously you need to boot the OS to RAM from somewhere but that is another topic. 

But if you change just one of these variables, things can go downhill. For example, let's say you do all that and then you decide to switch from Stylus to Roon (a variable changed). In that case, playing local music from a NAS may not be the best solution for you. Roon does not cache your entire track/album to RAM before it starts playing. It would use a lot more network and other I/O activity, which would generate more noise that may be audible. I mean network activity by itself generates audible noise. Also, Roon uses more hardware resources. So, in that case, if you switch to Roon, a local PCIe NVME storage might be a better solution. 

 

This is just a very simple illustration of interaction between software and hardware. Everything matters and everything needs to be considered. I can go into a lot more complex interaction examples but it would take me hours to write it down.

 

@bodiebill I can't tell exactly why one box solution with Euphony did not work for you. But looking at your two boxes - I don't see any of them as suitable for one-box Euphony solution. Your HQPe server does not have good and clean power. Your NAA endpoint is not very powerful. It seems like you are taking the USB output from your motherboard, which is not something I've had good results with (even if you use isoRegen). Something like the JCAT USB XE card powered by a really really good LPS would help a lot. But you also need a powerful server with very clean power. And different motherboards / different CPUs sound different, so you have to make the right component choices too.

I don't know the exact details of what you have done, but it almost seems like you have designed a good HQPe-based two box solution and just tried to put Euphony one of the boxes and eliminated the other. It does not work that way I am afraid. You would have much better results considering all the variables and designing your digital source to tailor your specific requirements. That's what DIY is all about. I am not surprised your two-box solution sounds better. 

 

 

 

Well said.  As you and I have discussed, there are dynamics when upsampling with HQPlayer where a 2 box solution may be a better filter for the noise generated by the server. My DAC choice is a Holo Spring R2R where upsampling is critical if not required for optimal listening.  I originally started with one server, a Paul Hynes SR7 powering it, a tX-USBexp and tX-USBultra where everything including the server was reclocked with the sCLK-EX and mastered by a Mutec Ref10.  The processor on that server handles upsampling DSD512 with ease.  A lot went into that build, but it still sounds better with the NUC (also re-clocked by a sCLK-EX and master clocked) as the end point because I believe it filters the noise from HQPlayer's upsampling efforts on the server.

 

We have much extermination to come but the decision to upsample on the server or not, which impacts noise generated by processors, is critical to your architecture. 

[ASRMichael]

37 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

 

Well said.  As you and I have discussed, there are dynamics when upsampling with HQPlayer where a 2 box solution may be a better filter for the noise generated by the server. My DAC choice is a Holo Spring R2R where upsampling is critical if not required for optimal listening.  I originally started with one server, a Paul Hynes SR7 powering it, a tX-USBexp and tX-USBultra where everything including the server was reclocked with the sCLK-EX and mastered by a Mutec Ref10.  The processor on that server handles upsampling DSD512 with ease.  A lot went into that build, but it still sounds better with the NUC (also re-clocked by a sCLK-EX and master clocked) as the end point because I believe it filters the noise from HQPlayer's upsampling efforts on the server.

 

We have much extermination to come but the decision to upsample on the server or not, which impacts noise generated by processors, is critical to your architecture. 

Thanks @Nenon& @Johnseye great discussion. 
 

My findings;
 

My TAD D1000 DAC to my ears & choice of sound, sounds better upsampling to HQPlayer DSD 64. But I do think SQ with & without is a matter of choice. With - Full & Bold, without detailed, airy & thin.

I was using two box solution but as soon as I added Sean Jacobs 7 rail LPS & Pink Faun Ultra USB to my server. One box solution sounded better. I appreciate its not a fair comparison as my server now has high end parts whilst my NUC has good parts (ocxo+LPS). The only way to fully test this would be to buy another SJ LPS for NUC & somehow integrate PF Ultra USB, to be honest I just wouldn’t do that, too much risk, also many other places to spend money on, as highlighted by Nenon. 

 

Cheers & stay safe! 

[Nenon]

Let me try to write a short and simple post this time, as you might be getting tired of my long posts. As I said in my previous post it's all about the net result.

 

Single box solution vs. a dual box solution

Here are my personal findings. YMMV.

• A well designed single box solution sounds better than a well designed dual box solution, as long as you are not upsampling. Let's quantify the improvement of a single box solution over a dual box solution as 'delta1'. 
• A well designed dual box solution sounds better when you are upsampling. 

Upsampling

The main question is how much your DAC benefits from upsampling. And that might be a pretty tough question to answer. 

But generally speaking, if the benefit of upsampling is more than delta1, then go with a two box solution. If the benefit of upsampling is less than delta1, then go with a single box. 

How do you know if your DAC benefits of upsampling? Ask the manufacturer. Look for feedback of other DAC owners. Test it yourself.

Here are 3 DACs that I'd prefer with a single box solution - Cerat Kassandra, TotalDAC, AudioNote DACs. Again YMMV. 

[Johnseye]

10 minutes ago, ASRMichael said:

Thanks @Nenon& @Johnseye great discussion. 
 

My findings;
 

My TAD D1000 DAC to my ears & choice of sound, sounds better upsampling to HQPlayer DSD 64. But I do think SQ with & without is a matter of choice. With - Full & Bold, without detailed, airy & thin.

I was using two box solution but as soon as I added Sean Jacobs 7 rail LPS & Pink Faun Ultra USB to my server. One box solution sounded better. I appreciate its not a fair comparison as my server now has high end parts whilst my NUC has good parts (ocxo+LPS). The only way to fully test this would be to buy another SJ LPS for NUC & somehow integrate PF Ultra USB, to be honest I just wouldn’t do that, too much risk, also many other places to spend money on, as highlighted by Nenon. 

 

Cheers & stay safe! 

 

So the SJ LPS was one of my next steps.  I began conversations with him but have paused.  The cost of this LPS has made me start thinking about the DAC.  Holo has a couple new models out and there are other options.  When you start looking at over $6k for a power supply you start thinking of where else you'd rather spend it. 😃 

[bodiebill]

2 hours ago, Nenon said:

Without a good powerful LPS? I think you got this part wrong... I am using an excellent multi-rail LPS, which is a combination of Sean Jacobs DC3, DC4, and his latest high current design. It's as good as it gets and costs a small fortune. Haven't had a chance to compare to a custom DR SR7 but will do one day. The power supply is the most important single component in a digital source. 

 

However, I think there is a fundamental difference in the way you tweak an upsampling system than what austinpop and I do with Euphony/Stylus. Please note the screenshot I have posted earlier - 2 CPUs / 20 cores / 40 threads. Two of the 40 threads are utilizing 2% CPU, two are utilizing 1% CPU, and 36 are at 0%. That's what makes Euphony sounds so good in my case.  Assigning processes to specific cores gives you a high level of isolation. Combine this with the extremely underutilized resources that are literally waiting for what to do and a world class LPS, and all the caching, playing from RAM, etc. in Euphony/Stylus, and the result is incredible. 

 

Add HQPlayer to the picture and that changes everything. HQPlayer needs a lot more processing power and keeps your CPUs busy. That generates a lot of noise that would eventually make its way to your DAC. Using a two-box solution in this case helps isolating some of that CPU noise. But that comes with its own complexities and downsides. What is important is the net result at the end. 

 

And for the net result you have to look at the entire chain when you design a digital source - from the file you are playing all the way to the analog output. That is a complex chain with even more complex interactions between the various components that includes hardware, software, power supplies, cables, the interface with the DAC, etc. Everything needs to be taken under account.

 

I typically start with the DAC and go upstream from there. Some DACs benefit a lot from upsampling. For those DACs you have to decide if upsampling with all the challenges you need to address is worth. My DAC does not benefit from upsampling, which makes this decision much easier. I owed a Denafrips Terminator DAC in 2018 but my source was not at that level at the time, so it's hard to comment on this particular DAC. I was happy with this DAC the first week only and then I realised it's not to my taste. But obviously there are a lot of considerations to make when you are deciding if you want to upsample in software or not. That's usually my first and biggest decision. Then you need to take other factors into account. Are you streaming online music? Or are you playing local files? If streaming online, your network needs special attention - cable modems, routers, VLANs, switches, power supplies for all your network devices, power cables, vibration isolation, ethernet cables, etc. This is all part of your digital source. If you are playing local files, the size of your music collection plus room for growth matters. You have to determine what type of storage you would be using. You need to decide if you are okay with a more simple player like Stylus or you need the sophisticated interface of Roon.  

 

And here is an example of interaction. If:

a. You are streaming from the Internet and get your network sorted out; and

b. You are okay with the Stylus player, that's running in ramroot and caching all the music before playing; then

You don't need to install internal storage for your local music. You don't need USB drives, SSDs, or HDDs that would generate additional noise in your computer. You can install a NAS on your network, and that would most likely give you the best results. Obviously you need to boot the OS to RAM from somewhere but that is another topic. 

But if you change just one of these variables, things can go downhill. For example, let's say you do all that and then you decide to switch from Stylus to Roon (a variable changed). In that case, playing local music from a NAS may not be the best solution for you. Roon does not cache your entire track/album to RAM before it starts playing. It would use a lot more network and other I/O activity, which would generate more noise that may be audible. I mean network activity by itself generates audible noise. Also, Roon uses more hardware resources. So, in that case, if you switch to Roon, a local PCIe NVME storage might be a better solution. 

 

This is just a very simple illustration of interaction between software and hardware. Everything matters and everything needs to be considered. I can go into a lot more complex interaction examples but it would take me hours to write it down.

 

@bodiebill I can't tell exactly why one box solution with Euphony did not work for you. But looking at your two boxes - I don't see any of them as suitable for one-box Euphony solution. Your HQPe server does not have good and clean power. Your NAA endpoint is not very powerful. It seems like you are taking the USB output from your motherboard, which is not something I've had good results with (even if you use isoRegen). Something like the JCAT USB XE card powered by a really really good LPS would help a lot. But you also need a powerful server with very clean power. And different motherboards / different CPUs sound different, so you have to make the right component choices too.

I don't know the exact details of what you have done, but it almost seems like you have designed a good HQPe-based two box solution and just tried to put Euphony one of the boxes and eliminated the other. It does not work that way I am afraid. You would have much better results considering all the variables and designing your digital source to tailor your specific requirements. That's what DIY is all about. I am not surprised your two-box solution sounds better. 

 

Thanks Nenon for your extensive explanation. Food for thought!

 

Sorry I missed your PS solution. I reacted to your "There is no good quality power supply on the market that I know of that can adequately power up this beast" and missed the context.

 

Indeed, in my case the 2-box solution sounds considerably better, and that may be because I gave up on powering the HQPe server with a LPS. I did so before, with a HDPlex 200W, but that ran way too hot using the EC modulators. I then chose for the Seasonic for the isolated server, which even seemed to sound better, though that could be my phantasy as the heat made me uncomfortable.

 

Actually, I am not using Euphony at all. Just HQPe / Audiolinux on the server and NAA / Gentooplayer or Audiolinux on the endpoint. But I guess the principles you describe would apply to AL and GP also.

 

I recognize what you say about the amount of work done by the single box, and how it influences SQ. Today I tried the single-box setup with EC modulators vs no upsampling by HQPe. The latter (using the Terminator's upsampling) sounded clearly better, whereas in the 2-box setup the reverse is the case.

 

I experimented with the 2 setups inspired by this thread and your reports. However I am really happy with the 2-box setup and the Terminator, and for now reluctant to spend a fortune on a powerful LPSU for the server to find out whether it could be improved further.

 

Regarding stock usb: an Elfidelity usb card is on its way to be tried soon on the endpoint. Cheap enough, and if I notice an improvement I could consider upgrading to a JCAT usb card in the future. Currently I am playing with NAA => Lush => iFi micro iusb3.0 => Lush^2 => ISO Regen => Terminator. I did notice though that the Terminator benefits less from such usb cleaners than my previous DAC (Lampizator Lite 7).

 

So many variables!

[ASRMichael]

7 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

 

So the SJ LPS was one of my next steps.  I began conversations with him but have paused.  The cost of this LPS has made me start thinking about the DAC.  Holo has a couple new models out and there are other options.  When you start looking at over $6k for a power supply you start thinking of where else you'd rather spend it. 😃 

Maybe the answer to that is full circle “a Sean Jacobs LPS” 😜

[ASRMichael]

Yes so many variables indeed! If I knew this before I started I would have stuck with my SME 30/2 Turntable!! 😢

[Johnseye]

3 minutes ago, ASRMichael said:

Yes so many variables indeed! If I knew this before I started I would have stuck with my SME 30/2 Turntable!! 😢

 

I still love listening to vinyl, even more than digital. I just wish I had a vinyl jukebox that sounded as good as my turntable so didn't have to filp records all the time.

 

The thing is, I can go back to using my SR7 and a single server build so a SJ would only be needed if I build a 2 proc server, which was what I had started to plan.  Nenon is much further along so I'm looking forward to his outcome.

[bodiebill]

55 minutes ago, Nenon said:

Let's quantify the improvement of a single box solution over a dual box solution as 'delta1'.

...

The main question is how much your DAC benefits from upsampling. And that might be a pretty tough question to answer. 

But generally speaking, if the benefit of upsampling is more than delta1, then go with a two box solution. If the benefit of upsampling is less than delta1, then go with a single box. 

 

That seems like simple guidance. However, so few of us know the delta1 that results from a high-quality single box solution as the latter is so difficult and expensive to build.

[lmitche]

1 hour ago, Nenon said:

But generally speaking, if the benefit of upsampling is more than delta1, then go with a two box solution. If the benefit of upsampling is less than delta1, then go with a single box. 

If only things were so simple.

 

My head hurts when I think of the permutations of upsampling, power supply quality, galvanic isolation, protocol and format conversions, current demand, OSes and playback software configurations, network devices . . . UGH!

[adamaley]

26 minutes ago, lmitche said:

If only things were so simple.

 

My head hurts when I think of the permutations of upsampling, power supply quality, galvanic isolation, protocol and format conversions, current demand, OSes and playback software configurations, network devices . . . UGH!

I agree that the complexity and concomitant headaches can definitely be overwhelming. For that reason, I decided to reach out to Nenon regarding commissioning a build, but he couldn't take one on. However, he's been extremely generous in offering advise on picking out a power supply and parts for my build. I'm actually replicating the AMD build posted above, but I believe my LPS configuration will be different from his, and I'll be rolling without the Ultra OCXO for the USB and motherboard until a later time when everything is burned in and I can ascertain the degree to which the clocks benefit the system.

 

I'll also be using a Seasonic Titanium ATX 750W power supply while I wait for the Sean Jacobs DC4 to be completed and shipped over the pond. Here again, I'll get to see what it brings to the table - not that I doubt it at all.

 

Nenon was gracious enough to accept a commission on building some of the cabling for my project, and I'm eternally grateful. 

 

Based on my experience regarding power supplies - in the past I've used a JS-2 powering LPS 1s, then LPS 1.2s, and then Sonore Signature LPS, and currently I have 3 Farad Super 3s in my system. They power UltraRendu, etherRegen, and Orbi Satellite. Based on these progressive LPS introductions into my system, I am of the mindset that the LPS is paramount to the sonics of any build. Start from there and everything else falls into place.

[Johnseye]

32 minutes ago, lmitche said:

If only things were so simple.

 

My head hurts when I think of the permutations of upsampling, power supply quality, galvanic isolation, protocol and format conversions, current demand, OSes and playback software configurations, network devices . . . UGH!

 

For simple we could just buy a Taiko SGM Extreme, but what would be the fun in that?!

[Johnseye]

7 minutes ago, adamaley said:

 

 

I'll also be using a Seasonic Titanium ATX 750W power supply while I wait for the Sean Jacobs DC4 to be completed and shipped over the pond. Here again, I'll get to see what it brings to the table - not that I doubt it at all.

 

 

What made you decide on this Seasonic?  Has there been a consensus on it being the best sounding, mass market PC designed power supply?

[adamaley]

18 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

 

What made you decide on this Seasonic?  Has there been a consensus on it being the best sounding, mass market PC designed power supply?

Not really. Mainly because it's fanless and, therefore, quiet. I've also seen it mentioned here in the forums. I'm basically only using it to tide me over while I wait for the SJ DC4. 

[ray-dude]

1 hour ago, Johnseye said:

 

For simple we could just buy a Taiko SGM Extreme, but what would be the fun in that?!

 

Quite fun

[ray-dude]

 

About 11k words in my write up (!)  Pretty remarkable step up from my dual i7 NUC setup.

 

Couple more weeks of listening tests to go to finish that up, but here is a sneak peek

 

[austinpop]

I started to write about how I had seesawed at least twice between distributed and standalone topologies, then thought it would be fun to create a chronology of my journey. Maybe this will become the seed of an article at some point. But anyway, for your amusement and edification, here is a chronology of my 10-year journey in computer audio streaming.

 

Note: for simplicity, I focused on topology, so this doesn't address all the other improvements and tweaks to get better SQ.

 

Keep in mind that there is an implied increase in SQ as you go from top to bottom. This core question is what has driven me throughout: what's the next step to better SQ? I started my journey firmly believing in the distributed model being superior. Over time, I learned to shed my dogmas, and just follow my ears.

 

Time Period	Music Storage	Music Server (HW/SW)	Music Endpoint (HW/SW)	Standalone Player (HW/SW)	Control (HW/SW)
2010-2015	Synology NAS	Synology NAS/LMS	Squeezebox Touch		IOS/iPeng
2016-2017	Synology NAS	Synology NAS/MinimServer	Aries Mini/Lightning		iOS/Lighning DS
2017	Synology NAS	Desktop/W10, Roon Core	Aries Mini/Roon		iOS/Roon
2017	Synology NAS	Desktop/W10, Roon Core	sMS-200/Roon		iOS/Roon
2017	Synology NAS	Desktop/W10, Roon Core	SOtM trifecta (switch, sMS, tX)/Roon		iOS/Roon
2018	Local SSD on ZENith SE			ZENith SE/Roon, Roon+SL	iOS/Roon
2019	Synology NAS	Desktop/W10, Roon Core	NUC7i7DNBE+Plato/AL, Roon		iOS/Roon
2019	Synology NAS	Desktop/AL, Roon Core	NUC7i7DNBE+Plato/AL, Roon		iOS/Roon
2019	Synology NAS	Desktop/AL, Roon Core	NUC7i7DNBE+Plato+SOtM clock mods/AL, Roon		iOS/Roon
2019	Synology NAS	Desktop/AL, Roon Core	NUC7i7DNBE+Plato+SOtM clock mods/AL, Squeezelite		iOS/Roon
2019	Synology NAS	i7-8700T/AL, Roon Core	NUC7i7DNBE+Plato+SOtM clock mods/AL, Squeezelite		iOS/Roon
2019	Synology NAS	i7-8700T/Euphony OS, Roon Core	NUC7i7DNBE+Plato+SOtM clock mods/Euphony OS, Squeezelite		iOS/Roon
2019	Synology NAS	i7-8700T/Euphony OS, Roon Core	NUC7i7DNBE+Plato+SOtM clock mods/Euphony OS, StylusEP		iOS/Roon
2019	Synology NAS			i7-8700T/Euphony OS, Roon+SL	iOS/Roon
2019	Synology NAS			i7-8700T/Euphony OS, Roon+StylusEP	iOS/Roon
2019-2020	Synology NAS			i7-8700T/Euphony OS, Stylus	iOS/Stylus
2020	Synology NAS			i7-8700K/Euphony OS, Stylus	iOS/Stylus

Glossary:

 

Desktop: Vanilla Dell Desktop system

AL: AudioLinux

SL: Squeezelite

W10: Windows 10

LMS: Logitech Media Server

i7-xxxx: custom servers using xxxx processor

[beautiful music]

3 hours ago, ray-dude said:

 

About 11k words in my write up (!)  Pretty remarkable step up from my dual i7 NUC setup.

 

Couple more weeks of listening tests to go to finish that up, but here is a sneak peek

 

 

I think it deserves 26k words 😉.

[adamaley]

1 hour ago, beautiful music said:

 

I think it deserves 26k words 😉.

The orange Dutch tape gives it away. Congrats!

[ray-dude]

1 hour ago, beautiful music said:

 

I think it deserves 26k words 😉.

 

  I have that joke (and one other I'm not going to spoil here) in the opus!  Just need folks to promise to forget they read that here first