Let's talk about SOTM SMS-200 ULTRA

[afrancois]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

you are wrong on both counts

Thank you for that answer, without any explanation.

[Ralf11]

both effects can be detected, measured, etc. with the right instrumentation 

 

a full answer is going to require some course work

[Blade1001]

11 hours ago, afrancois said:

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.

 

The Lyndorf microphone is a generic microphone,  Lyndorf will just purchase an OEM unit from a manufacturer, I would suspect it performs no better than the UMIK-1 in measured performance which is more than adequate for 99% of calibration requirements. The reason a specific mic will be tied to a specific Lyndorf unit is that the mic performance is greatly improved by using its specific calibration file for that specific microphone.

[Blade1001]

10 hours 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?

 

As I mentioned above, it is either a) something that is not related to frequency response (decay, ringing, distortion variation), or b) something in your specific ear to brain interface. We should never under estimate the latter.

 

I'm not a big advocate in banging the 'double blind test' drum - to me this is a hobby and shouldn't be a chore, no one has anything to prove to anyone else - but in this case it would be interesting (only from an academic point of view, and only as you have already gone to the effort of trying to finding an empirical answer), to see if you can readily and consistently identify each streamer blind from your sighted observed sound characteristic. There is always the chance that once you have sowed the seed in your head that the SOtM is 'brighter', that may be what you are more inclined to hear each time.

 

If the recent Yanni/Laurel viral internet thing proved anything to me personally, it was that our brains can not only interpret an identical sound completely differently from another individual, but the same brain can be trained to interpret the same sound differently given a different set of expectations.

 

 

[Confused]

24 minutes ago, Blade1001 said:

 

As I mentioned above, it is either a) something that is not related to frequency response (decay, ringing, distortion variation), or b) something in your specific ear to brain interface. We should never under estimate the latter.

 

I'm not a big advocate in banging the 'double blind test' drum - to me this is a hobby and shouldn't be a chore, no one has anything to prove to anyone else - but in this case it would be interesting (only from an academic point of view, and only as you have already gone to the effort of trying to finding an empirical answer), to see if you can readily and consistently identify each streamer blind from your sighted observed sound characteristic. There is always the chance that once you have sowed the seed in your head that the SOtM is 'brighter', that may be what you are more inclined to hear each time.

 

If the recent Yanni/Laurel viral internet thing proved anything to me personally, it was that our brains can not only interpret an identical sound completely differently from another individual, but the same brain can be trained to interpret the same sound differently given a different set of expectations.

 

 

I am as sure as I can be that it something relating to your point a above.  I do of course have the advantage that I can actually listen to the thing, for everyone else you can just read my words and wonder if I am imagining it.  That said, I am very aware of the perils of expectation bias and similar, ignore it at your peril!  When I get time, I think I will set up some kind of blind test, I know from past experience just how enlightening it can be, with seaming obvious differences sometimes more or less vanishing when you are listening 'blind'.

 

Anyway, I am beginning to feel a bit sorry for @mikicasellas, his request is getting a little lost.  Has anyone listened to the SOtM sMS-200Ultra versus the Bricasti M5 or ultraRendu?  (Plus I am quite interested in the answer to this myself)?

[afrancois]

1 hour ago, Blade1001 said:

 

The Lyndorf microphone is a generic microphone,  Lyndorf will just purchase an OEM unit from a manufacturer, I would suspect it performs no better than the UMIK-1 in measured performance which is more than adequate for 99% of calibration requirements. The reason a specific mic will be tied to a specific Lyndorf unit is that the mic performance is greatly improved by using its specific calibration file for that specific microphone.

Do you have a Lyngdorf? If so, try replacing the stock microphone with for example a Behringer ECM8000 as I did and you will see it doesn't work! 

[Blade1001]

1 minute ago, afrancois said:

Do you have a Lyngdorf? If so, try replacing the stock microphone with for example a Behringer ECM8000 as I did and you will see it doesn't work! 

 

It won't work, why would it? The software will be tied to a specific microphone serial number for the reasons I've already given. Anthem do exactly the same thing with their ARC microphones. They don't want users using an microphone with a preloaded calibration file that would be incorrect for it. 

 

You're missing the initial and overriding discussion point though, which was that the performance of the microphone that Lyndorf bundle with their processors, will not be significantly different than the UMIK-1, or indeed any other mid-range calibration mic.

[afrancois]

9 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

both effects can be detected, measured, etc. with the right instrumentation 

 

a full answer is going to require some course work

I see where you are coming from when I read your signature. You are the camp that all things can be measured. 
Having a computer science degree myself, I also had the tendency in the past, to approach everything with reasoning and logic. 
Luckily I decided one day to have an open mind. I’m very glad I did, if not, I would never have the system I have today. 
On the other hand, I’ve always known that our current state of technology has a huge number of limitations. Not everything can be measured, yet.

[afrancois]

8 minutes ago, Blade1001 said:

 

It won't work, why would it? The software will be tied to a specific microphone serial number for the reasons I've already given. Anthem do exactly the same thing with their ARC microphones. They don't want users using an microphone with a preloaded calibration file that would be incorrect for it. 

 

You're missing the initial and overriding discussion point though, which was that the performance of the microphone that Lyndorf bundle with their processors, will not be significantly different than the UMIK-1, or indeed any other mid-range calibration mic.

 

There are different kinds of microphones on the market. Perhaps these Lyngdorf microphones have been constructed to be more sensitive in certain regions. Only guessing of course. It could also be that they are protecting their market and making the microphone somewhat proprietary. For the latter, I see little reason, however. You are probably right in assuming they want to avoid the hassle with calibration files and microphone mismatching. The Lyngdorf way of measuring the room is unique and nothing like all the other software solutions like REW. So I wouldn't be surprised that perhaps the microphone itself plays somehow a role in it.

[Blade1001]

1 hour ago, afrancois said:

There are different kinds of microphones on the market. Perhaps these Lyngdorf microphones have been constructed to be more sensitive in certain regions. Only guessing of course.

 

I'm starting to feel I'm flogging a dead horse here, so last post on the subject as its already way OT. If a microphone measures with +/-1dB accuracy from 20Hz-20Khz, no more is needed, sure you can get a mic that measures accurately over a wider frequency range such as the M30 which can cover 10Hz-30Khz, but they're £650 each and won't be being bundled with a £2,500 processor. The Lyndorf will be no more accurate than this. It will be a bog standard OEM mid-range (read more than sufficiently accurate for the purpose) measurement mic.

 

1 hour ago, afrancois said:

The Lyngdorf way of measuring the room is unique and nothing like all the other software solutions like REW. So I wouldn't be surprised that perhaps the microphone itself plays somehow a role in it.

 

Lyndorfs way of measuring the room, and how it uses the microphone to do so will use exactly the same basic principles as every other measurement solution out there, which is grounded in established practice and science for the measurement of speakers and rooms. Where Lyndorf will differ is how it then uses those results to compute its eventual FIR and IIR filters for the final chosen room correction profile, and that is where Lyndorf will differ from Dirac, Trinnov, Audessey, Acourate or anyone else. The only influence the mic will have is its ability to record those standard initial frequency response, phase response and impulse measurements.

[afrancois]

13 minutes ago, Blade1001 said:

 

I'm starting to feel I'm flogging a dead horse here, so last post on the subject as its already way OT. If a microphone measures with +/-1dB accuracy from 20Hz-20Khz, no more is needed, sure you can get a mic that measures accurately over a wider frequency range such as the M30 which can cover 10Hz-30Khz, but they're £650 each and won't be being bundled with a £2,500 processor. The Lyndorf will be no more accurate than this. It will be a bog standard OEM mid-range (read more than sufficiently accurate for the purpose) measurement mic.

 

 

Lyndorfs way of measuring the room, and how it uses the microphone to do so will use exactly the same basic principles as every other measurement solution out there, which is grounded in established practice and science for the measurement of speakers and rooms. Where Lyndorf will differ is how it then uses those results to compute its eventual FIR and IIR filters for the final chosen room correction profile, and that is where Lyndorf will differ from Dirac, Trinnov, Audessey, Acourate or anyone else. The only influence the mic will have is its ability to record those standard initial frequency response and impulse measurements.

I admit you're far more knowledgeable on the subject then I am and that you are correct in saying that way of measuring is probably very similar between different systems. However, if you have the time, read the included attachment. The document goes to great length into explaining what RoomPerfect is. I think then you will agree that the system is quite different from any other system out there. All I can say that it works flawlessly, in every different setting I've heard and that without being as knowledgeable as you. Don't get me wrong I'm not being sarcastic here.

Lyngdorf RoomPerfect Patent.pdf

[mikicasellas]

7 hours ago, Confused said:

I am as sure as I can be that it something relating to your point a above.  I do of course have the advantage that I can actually listen to the thing, for everyone else you can just read my words and wonder if I am imagining it.  That said, I am very aware of the perils of expectation bias and similar, ignore it at your peril!  When I get time, I think I will set up some kind of blind test, I know from past experience just how enlightening it can be, with seaming obvious differences sometimes more or less vanishing when you are listening 'blind'.

 

Anyway, I am beginning to feel a bit sorry for @mikicasellas, his request is getting a little lost.  Has anyone listened to the SOtM sMS-200Ultra versus the Bricasti M5 or ultraRendu?  (Plus I am quite interested in the answer to this myself)?

Jajaja, i have been learning for quite sometime in these forums that the reality of regular folks is not our history here, just listen and enjoy is not particular the fashion of this hobby, but i am glad i am returning to that meaning again, i feel like i have been in a long dream during the time in this hobby where sometimes it is very nice in the way of getting better sound as you go building things but there is a point where things gets very stressing and lacks of enjoyment at least for me, i don't blame other for doing so...a few days back i was at a friends house, he has a 1,000 usd Yamaha system (integrated, speakers and subwoofer) you don't have an idea how much i enjoyed listened to music in his system, definitely not in the level of my system but at the end i think i have been forgetting the super enjoying part in a natural way where i don't have to sit and examine if the sounds is right or not, or the song was not properly recorded in the studio room and that is why it does not sound as i was expecting specially some of my favorites songs...it made me wonder if i am spending my money wise...i am in the last pull of this hobby! if after going for my streamer whatever ended up being  i will probably sell everything and get a very decent and normal system, my system has reached an investment of around 25,000 usd, go figure i was sitting and tapping my feet in a 1,000 system oh Lord! jajajaja

 

 

[Ralf11]

9 hours ago, afrancois said:

I see where you are coming from when I read your signature. You are the camp that all things can be measured. 
Having a computer science degree myself, I also had the tendency in the past, to approach everything with reasoning and logic. 
Luckily I decided one day to have an open mind. I’m very glad I did, if not, I would never have the system I have today. 
On the other hand, I’ve always known that our current state of technology has a huge number of limitations. Not everything can be measured, yet.

 

Of course, not everything can be measured right now - e.g. dark matter, dark energy, dank matter, etc.  The questions are whether measurements of all audio phenomena can be made, and more  importantly perhaps, whether measurements of audio phenomena useful in evaluating and developing systems.  The answer there is yes.

 

For your chemo-sensory issue, I suggest some analytical chemistry textbook perusal - you can then move on to wine-making techniques, etc.  Or look at Oxford's sensory labs.

 

Then there is the issue of doing listening tests without instrumentation or "measurement" - I am fine with that.  But one needs to control for extraneous variables.

 

 

The post above re REW is relevant to your assertions.  It uses simple test tones to measure freq. response.  While it is well established that humans have certain limits for the freqs. they can hear (which vary among individuals, and with age, gender), the ability to hear fast transients in complex musical signals is less clear.  It can be measured, but has not been.

[Superdad]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

Of course, not everything can be measured right now - e.g. dark matter, dark energy, dank matter, etc. 

 

"Dank matter"?  You mean like the moldy socks at the bottom of our teenage son's laundry hamper?  On a scale of "hmm.." to "whoa," those are off the chart chart at "holy crap boy, get in here!"  

[Ralf11]

it is not the amplitude of effect that is unmeasurable, it is that they always seem to be missing...

 

 

just like dark matter

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

14 hours ago, afrancois said:

 I’ve always known that our current state of technology has a huge number of limitations. Not everything can be measured, yet.

 

I'm with you!

 

4 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 The questions are whether measurements of all audio phenomena can be made, and more  importantly perhaps, whether measurements of audio phenomena useful in evaluating and developing systems.  The answer there is yes.

 

[asdf1000]

4 hours ago, Superdad said:

 

"Dank matter"?  You mean like the moldy socks at the bottom of our teenage son's laundry hamper?  On a scale of "hmm.." to "whoa," those are off the chart chart at "holy crap boy, get in here!"  

 

Hilarious!

[Superdad]

25 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

Hilarious!

 

Thank you very much.  You're a wunderful audioence and I'll be playing here all week.

Enjoy too my latest ferrite/ferret joke at:

[Tommd64]

On 8/18/2017 at 10:41 PM, ducatirider said:

What sounds better?  Adding tx-USBUltra to the regular SMS-200  or getting the SMS-200Ultra?

Ive treid them both. The combination with a SotM 200 and TX usb ultra is a great update. After consulting May from Sotm she advised me the SotM 200 ultra because of a cleaner performance and the possibility with one power supply with Y connection cable so you can feed them both.

Ive got the SotM 200 ultra now for onlu one day.. with the power supply of SotM it had to burn in for at least 200 hours..

[Tommd64]

On 8/21/2017 at 10:57 PM, zoltan said:

I have one of the 9V units. It's actually one of the first few ever sold, it is a demo unit from Munich. They did the demo with 9V units (4 units to be precise). If the 12V unit sounded better, they would have brought those or in fact, they would probably make 12V units only. As far as I understand, they offer the 12V units because some people already have 12V good power supplies they may want to continue using. I have never heard that anyone A/B tested the two units with different voltages and one sounded better than the other. Since the clock board inside can only take 9V max, there must be a DC-DC converter inside, so the unit still works with 9 Volts (this is an assumption btw). 

One of the advantages is a Y cable to drive Mytek brooklyn and a SotM 200ultra together with one power supply of 12v. It s a way to spare a dime..

[Lukasluis]

I'm just wondering, has anyone tried MPD with USB attached LPS-powered HDD on the sMS-200? Sounds great here, better than Roon from LAN/Ethernet source. 

[carsten s chr]

Hi all!...?

 

All though I feel the SMS 200 Ultra sounds just right, there’s just one VERY annoying issue, that drives me absolutely crazy - killing ANY wish for listening to music?!?... 

 

The issue is, that in MPD mode -which I believe brings me the closest to the soul of the music- I’m having clicks/pops between every single track in the playlist.

 

My DAC is the Antelope Audio Zodiac Gold.

 

And when consulting the Antelope help and servicecenter, informing them about the observed issue, They’re confident it’s likely the MPD software, that causes a split datastream, which leads to the observed issue with clicks/pops between tracks. The Antelope Audio Zodiac Gold, when it “see’s” this as usefull, locks to the incomming signal - when not, it unlocks from the digital input.

When consulting SOTM about the very same thing, they’re absolutely confident, that the observed clicks/pops are caused by the way, the DAC see’s the incomming data.

 

SOTM is informed, that Squeezelite have no clicks/pops between track - and likely no breaks in datastream, that goes to the DAC? Using Mac, iTunes, Audirvana, Amarra, Bitperfect or PureMusic, adds no clicks/pops - what so ever. When using jRiver and iTunes on Windows based PC, there’s no issues as well!

So - I’m quite confident, that it’s just a matter of a tiny setting -like Gabless Playback- in the MPD software, that will be able to bring the click/pops out of my life?...?

 

And again - soundwise, the SMS 200 Ultra could be absolutely fabulous - if no clicks/pops were added between every single track in the playlist?!?...?

 

Best wishes Carsten

[Lukasluis]

11 minutes ago, carsten s chr said:

Hi all!...?

 

All though I feel the SMS 200 Ultra sounds just right, there’s just one VERY annoying issue, that drives me absolutely crazy - killing ANY wish for listening to music?!?... 

 

The issue is, that in MPD mode -which I believe brings me the closest to the soul of the music- I’m having clicks/pops between every single track in the playlist.

 

My DAC is the Antelope Audio Zodiac Gold.

 

And when consulting the Antelope help and servicecenter, informing them about the observed issue, They’re confident it’s likely the MPD software, that causes a split datastream, which leads to the observed issue with clicks/pops between tracks. The Antelope Audio Zodiac Gold, when it “see’s” this as usefull, locks to the incomming signal - when not, it unlocks from the digital input.

When consulting SOTM about the very same thing, they’re absolutely confident, that the observed clicks/pops are caused by the way, the DAC see’s the incomming data.

 

SOTM is informed, that Squeezelite have no clicks/pops between track - and likely no breaks in datastream, that goes to the DAC? Using Mac, iTunes, Audirvana, Amarra, Bitperfect or PureMusic, adds no clicks/pops - what so ever. When using jRiver and iTunes on Windows based PC, there’s no issues as well!

So - I’m quite confident, that it’s just a matter of a tiny setting -like Gabless Playback- in the MPD software, that will be able to bring the click/pops out of my life?...?

 

And again - soundwise, the SMS 200 Ultra could be absolutely fabulous - if no clicks/pops were added between every single track in the playlist?!?...?

 

Best wishes Carsten

The new firmware now includes MPD settings such as Audio buffer size, no. of buffers before play, buffer time and Period time. I have to adjust the Buffers before play so that DSD files play smoothly. Perhaps you would like to experiment with these settings. 

[carsten s chr]

1 hour ago, Lukasluis said:

The new firmware now includes MPD settings such as Audio buffer size, no. of buffers before play, buffer time and Period time. I have to adjust the Buffers before play so that DSD files play smoothly. Perhaps you would like to experiment with these settings. 

Hi!

I’ve been playing around with all of the MPD settings, including the parameters you’ve mentioned, and nothing really do any different - absolutely no difference in the representation of the clicks/pops between every track in the playlist?!?...?

[guerph]

Any more news on the Neo?