Let's talk about SOTM SMS-200 ULTRA

[Confused]

12 minutes ago, Blade1001 said:

I recently bought the SoTM trifecta from @doraymon  (thanks for the smooth transaction Dom).

 

As neither the 200Ultra or the tX-USBUltra have external clock inputs - if I wanted to add a master clock further down the line, does anyone know how easy it is to add this (ideally without sending it off toe SoTM)?

 

I note by looking through the top grill that the board (presumably the clock board) has a small MCX style socket on it labelled "75 Ohm IN", and the rear panel already has a hole cut where the BNC socket, for the clock input, normally sits.

 

Would it therefore simply be a case of adding a cable like this:

 

Tengko 0.5ft BNC Female to MCX Male Right Angle Connector Mini Adapter Assembly

 

The manual on the SoTM sCLK-EX board (which looks identical to the one in the 200 and txUSB) seems to suggest nothing else is required?:

 

SoTM sCLK-EX Manual (Last page)

 

According to the manual there is an LED on the board that lights up once the sync to an external clock is locked. So I guess if that lights up, its works?

 

Any thoughts?

I recall something similar being discussed on another thread.  This was a question regarding swapping between 75 ohm and 50 ohm feeds for the external clock.  Apparently this change requires a firmware update for the sCLK-EX board.  I am guessing that in your case a firmware update may be required.  Alternatively, maybe the sCLK-EX board as supplied is good for one or the other of the 75 ohm or 50ohm taps?  It might be worth checking this with SOtM.

[Confused]

Re my post above, here is the link the previous posts I mentioned:

 

 

[Blade1001]

14 minutes ago, Confused said:

I recall something similar being discussed on another thread.  This was a question regarding swapping between 75 ohm and 50 ohm feeds for the external clock.  Apparently this change requires a firmware update for the sCLK-EX board.  I am guessing that in your case a firmware update may be required.  Alternatively, maybe the sCLK-EX board as supplied is good for one or the other of the 75 ohm or 50ohm taps?  It might be worth checking this with SOtM.

 

OK, thanks. So that thread post would suggest the board is pre-set up for a 50 ohm input, so as long as the master clock has a 50 ohm output, I could use that.

 

I have contacted SoTM, so hopefully they will come back with a helpful response, as long as they can see past losing their $200 x 2 fee for adding the $8 cable and possible firmware!

[Confused]

13 minutes ago, Blade1001 said:

 

OK, thanks. So that thread post would suggest the board is pre-set up for a 50 ohm input, so as long as the master clock has a 50 ohm output, I could use that.

 

I have contacted SoTM, so hopefully they will come back with a helpful response, as long as they can see past losing their $200 x 2 fee for adding the $8 cable and possible firmware!

To be clear, @zoltan's unit was ordered with a 50 ohm clock connector, if he had ordered a 75 ohm unit, his board would have been supplied with the 75 ohm firmware.  So the question is, if you buy the SOtM ultra units without clock connectors, what firmware does the sCLK-EX have by default?  Anyway, good luck getting the answers you need from SOtM.

[acaro]

It should be simple enough to order one of each cable and try them to see if one of them works - assuming you have a clock that runs 50 and 75.  I would love to know if this mod will work as I have no intention on sending my units to Korea.

[Blade1001]

That was my thinking too. Now I  look at it, I could possibly run a longer cable direct from the board, out through one of the rear vent holes (secured in place with a blob of silicon to act as a strain relief) and straight to a clock, eliminating another mechanical connection and the need for any drilling. 

 

I guess if I have a go with a Mutec Ref 10, or similar, at some point in the future, I can give it a go.

[acaro]

I noticed that the footnotes in the manual on page 7 indicate that the default frequency of the master clock is 10.  

[Blade1001]

Anyone in this thread using their SMS-200 Ultra with a Lampizator Big 7 (with the DSD256 Amerano Combo384 input)?                                                                                          

[mikicasellas]

If anyone have listened to SOtM sMS-200Ultra and Bricasti M5 and UltraRendu, which one do you consider to sound "less bright", more engaging and clean?

 

 

[Confused]

6 hours ago, mikicasellas said:

If anyone have listened to SOtM sMS-200Ultra and Bricasti M5 and UltraRendu, which one do you consider to sound "less bright", more engaging and clean?

 

 

I own a sMS-200Ultra, but have not tried it versus the Bricasti M5 or the ultraRendu.  So I too would be interested in hearing from anyone who has done the comparison.

 

That said, I might be able to provide some insight.  I switched from a microRendu feeding a Mutec MC3+USB, to both the sMS-200Ultra and tX-USBultra.  My immediate reaction was that the sMS-200Ultra was a lot brighter than the mR.  With some recordings this was fine, but other recordings could sound too bright and harsh.  This was irrespective of if I tried the tX in the chain or not.

 

But as I said, this was initial impressions.  My system, in my room, can be a little on the bright side, despite having excellent bass.  Somehow the sMS-200Ultra seamed to push things a little over the edge.  In fact, I was convinced that the sMS-200Ultra was something like +1dB to +2dB brighter than the mR, that is how it sounded subjectively.  I actually made the effort to perform in room REW measurements to compare the mR to the sMS-200Ultra.  Measured with REW the two were identical with respect to frequency response SPL. 

 

Having spent some time with the sMS-200Ultra, it is still absolutely clear to me that it subjectively sounds brighter, but with much careful listening and comparisons the treble and presence range are much clearer and more accurate with the sMS when compared to the mR.  It is a curious thing.  I sometimes run room correction now, and I would consider the HF with the sMS-200Ultra one of it's strengths.  Cymbals crash with an incisive cutting quality, this kind of thing, it is very impressive.  In this regard I am sure this would fit your "engaging and clean" criteria.  And yet, if I run my system raw without RC, with some material the sMS-200Ultra does sound too bright versus the mR, I remain baffled why this is considering the in room measurements are identical between the two.

[Blade1001]

48 minutes ago, Confused said:

I remain baffled why this is considering the in room measurements are identical between the two.

 

Can you post both sets of REW measurements overlaid on the same graph?

 

[Confused]

Here is the HF end of the graph, taken in one position, no averaging, and only 1/12 ("warts and all") smoothing to try to discern the differences.  Certainly nothing like the +2dB treble hike I would claim subjectively.

 

Note the colours, Roon AIR red, mR green, SOtM blue  (I am running a Devialet amp, so Devialet's Roon AIR streaming also included for comparison)

 

The vertical scale is 2dB per line.

[afrancois]

37 minutes ago, Confused said:

Here is the HF end of the graph, taken in one position, no averaging, and only 1/12 ("warts and all") smoothing to try to discern the differences.  Certainly nothing like the +2dB treble hike I would claim subjectively.

 

Note the colours, Roon AIR red, mR green, SOtM blue  (I am running a Devialet amp, so Devialet's Roon AIR streaming also included for comparison)

 

The vertical scale is 2dB per line.

Run the measurements three times in a row with the same device and you will have different results each time. These kind of measurements require very expensive microphones and other gear.

This is the reason why Lyngdorf uses a special kind of microphone and special test tones.

[Confused]

13 minutes ago, afrancois said:

Run the measurements three times in a row with the same device and you will have different results each time. These kind of measurements require very expensive microphones and other gear.

This is the reason why Lyngdorf uses a special kind of microphone and special test tones.

Yes, agreed.  For the record, the above measurements were taken with REW and UMIK-1 microphone with calibration file, with no movement of the microphone between measurements for the sMS-200Ultra or mR.  For room correction I have used 14 separate left / right measurements at and around the 'sweet spot'.  It is interesting to observe that the above rather mountainous looking 'curve' transforms to an almost perfect straight line when the measurements are averaged.  The above is simply to illustrate the differences (or lack of them) in frequency SPL between the sMS-200Ultra and the microRendu.  Any differences would be even harder to discern with averaged readings from different locations I think.

[Blade1001]

12 minutes ago, afrancois said:

Run the measurements three times in a row with the same device and you will have different results each time. These kind of measurements require very expensive microphones and other gear.

This is the reason why Lyngdorf uses a special kind of microphone and special test tones.

 

If the graph has a 2dB per line vertical scale, all three measurements are almost exactly the same - certainly within the acceptable range of a natural frequency response variation of a microphone and non-anechoic measurements. 

 

You wouldn't get any better measurements with the Lyndorf mic - of which there is nothing 'special' its a generic mid-range mic. In fact I'd wager the measurement repeatability isn't significantly better with the Earthworks M30 and Sound Devices USB Pre2 combo that I have.

 

The point is though that the measurements prove there is no significant (read audible) difference in frequency response between the three devices, but that said the FR is only a very small part of the picture, it doesn't look at ringing, distortion or other factors that may account for the sound difference that Confused is hearing.

[Blade1001]

13 minutes ago, Confused said:

. . . the above rather mountainous looking 'curve' transforms to an almost perfect straight line when the measurements are averaged. 

 

If the vertical graph is 2dB per line, you have only a +/-1dB variation in frequency response from just over 1kHz to 20kHz - thats a pretty stellar result.

 

That said, personally that would sound quite bright to me. I usually need to achieve a gentle downward slope to between -3dB to -6db by 20khz to get a natural sounding response. You might want to experiment with some simple shelf filters to roll off that top end a little, if you have the facility in your system.

[Confused]

12 minutes ago, Blade1001 said:

 

If the vertical graph is 2dB per line, you have only a +/-1dB variation in frequency response from just over 1kHz to 20kHz - thats a pretty stellar result.

 

That said, personally that would sound quite bright to me. I usually need to achieve a gentle downward slope to between -3dB to -6db by 20khz to get a natural sounding response. You might want to experiment with some simple shelf filters to roll off that top end a little, if you have the facility in your system.

It does indeed sound a touch bright.  I am currently using convolution filters provided by "Home Audio Fidelity"  (see link)

 

 

It is interesting that if I use HAF convolution filters per the above, the HF from the SOtM kit sounds absolutely sensational.  (the filters are providing a degree of downward slope I guess)  Without the convolutions, the SOtM kit can sound a little bright, almost harsh sounding, whereas the mR did not.  So without the correction, you might find the slightly darker sounding mR preferable, with the correction the SOtM kit is clearly superior.  Knowing that the two measure identically, this is a fascinating phenomenon.

[Blade1001]

So is your REW graph above with or without the HAF filters?

 

14 minutes ago, Confused said:

It does indeed sound a touch bright.  . . .  (the filters are providing a degree of downward slope I guess) . . .

 

With regards to HAF filters, I wouldn't expect them to particularly create a downward slope to the frequency response unless you gave them a specific target curve to work to - however their filters may cut some peaks to higher frequencies to smooth the overall frequency response. 

 

Its probably out of the scope of this thread, but it'd be interesting to see some measurements both with and without their filters engaged.

 

[Confused]

1 hour ago, Blade1001 said:

So is your REW graph above with or without the HAF filters?

 

 

With regards to HAF filters, I wouldn't expect them to particularly create a downward slope to the frequency response unless you gave them a specific target curve to work to - however their filters may cut some peaks to higher frequencies to smooth the overall frequency response. 

 

Its probably out of the scope of this thread, but it'd be interesting to see some measurements both with and without their filters engaged.

 

The above graphs are without convolution filters.

 

.....And yes, this is drifting a little off topic.  When I get some time I plan to post about my REF10 /  SOtM / HAF experiences in detail, I'll probably start a new topic for this, but I will add a link hear so anyone interested can pick it up.

[afrancois]

5 hours ago, Blade1001 said:

 

If the graph has a 2dB per line vertical scale, all three measurements are almost exactly the same - certainly within the acceptable range of a natural frequency response variation of a microphone and non-anechoic measurements. 

 

You wouldn't get any better measurements with the Lyndorf mic - of which there is nothing 'special' its a generic mid-range mic. In fact I'd wager the measurement repeatability isn't significantly better with the Earthworks M30 and Sound Devices USB Pre2 combo that I have.

 

The point is though that the measurements prove there is no significant (read audible) difference in frequency response between the three devices, but that said the FR is only a very small part of the picture, it doesn't look at ringing, distortion or other factors that may account for the sound difference that Confused is hearing.

I don 't say that the Lyngdorf microphone is something special. All I know is that you can't replace it with a generic microphone. I guess they have done something to better capture the test tones the amplifier is sending out during the calibration.

[afrancois]

5 hours ago, Confused said:

Yes, agreed.  For the record, the above measurements were taken with REW and UMIK-1 microphone with calibration file, with no movement of the microphone between measurements for the sMS-200Ultra or mR.  For room correction I have used 14 separate left / right measurements at and around the 'sweet spot'.  It is interesting to observe that the above rather mountainous looking 'curve' transforms to an almost perfect straight line when the measurements are averaged.  The above is simply to illustrate the differences (or lack of them) in frequency SPL between the sMS-200Ultra and the microRendu.  Any differences would be even harder to discern with averaged readings from different locations I think.

Our ears are far more sensitive then the best microphone. In fact it is rather the combination of our ears and our brain that interprets what we call sound. If you would use device that is sonic wise far jnferior to the mr or sms you will get a curve that closely follows the others.

[Confused]

1 hour ago, afrancois said:

Our ears are far more sensitive then the best microphone. In fact it is rather the combination of our ears and our brain that interprets what we call sound. If you would use device that is sonic wise far jnferior to the mr or sms you will get a curve that closely follows the others.

It depends how you look at it, for example, REW with a microphone can register beyond 17kHz, my ears and brain cannot.  That said, going from the mR to the sMS yielded something I can hear but is not apparent in REW.  I am quite sure the microphone also detects what my ears do, it is the software that does not register what my brain does.  So what is it?  I am quite sure that the mR and sMS-200Ultra are delivering exactly the same bits.  The Ultra has better clocking than the mR, and I presume better filtering of noise.  Which leads to the question as to why this makes the Ultra subjectively sound brighter, when the objective measurents say otherwise.  I could speculate now, but frankly I do not know the answer for sure.  Maybe there is something else REW can measure that would solve this one?

[afrancois]

34 minutes ago, Confused said:

It depends how you look at it, for example, REW with a microphone can register beyond 17kHz, my ears and brain cannot.  That said, going from the mR to the sMS yielded something I can hear but is not apparent in REW.  I am quite sure the microphone also detects what my ears do, it is the software that does not register what my brain does.  So what is it?  I am quite sure that the mR and sMS-200Ultra are delivering exactly the same bits.  The Ultra has better clocking than the mR, and I presume better filtering of noise.  Which leads to the question as to why this makes the Ultra subjectively sound brighter, when the objective measurents say otherwise.  I could speculate now, but frankly I do not know the answer for sure.  Maybe there is something else REW can measure that would solve this one?

There’s no machine nor computer that can determine that somethings sounds good or bad. A chemical analysis can determine if something is poisonous or not, but not if it tastes good or bad by any human standard. The day a computer will be able to determine if something sounds good is the day that same computer will be able to write majestic symphonies like Beethoven. So yes the brain has a lot to do with the way we interpret sound.

[Ralf11]

1 minute ago, afrancois said:

There’s no machine nor computer that can determine that somethings sounds good or bad. A chemical analysis can determine if something is poisonous or not, but not if it tastes good or bad by any human standard.  

 

 

you are wrong on both counts

[mikicasellas]

I read that a lot of folks preferring the SOtM streamer, it seems that perhaps those people have an already warmer system, where others with a more forward HF system would be preferring the UltraRendu?

 

Has anyone A-B with Bricadti M5?