Building a PC to improve SMS-200 Ultra

[austinpop]

3 hours ago, Advieira said:

First I thank you guys for the informations. But some things have changed after so many informations in the meantime.

Some audiophiles (like Hans Beekhuyzen) claims the way SMS-200Ultra works (as Roon Endpoint) makes it unaffected by the quality of any Roon Core (server). And it really seems reasonable argument as the ultra (as endpoint) is not a filter but actually the renderer or " the thing that make sound", in the words of roonlabs website. On the other hand, they told cables and lan isolator before the SMS-200ultra can bring improvements.

 

I really would like to know how modify my macmini and sms200ultra to connect the clocks to ethernet and cpu mobo. I think this is the best advice on this topic. But I don´t. 

 

And I dont think a NUC a big improvement over a mac mini, based on the statements above.

 

If instead abandoning my mac mini I use my actual budget (1.5k) to improve the chain between my Router to Vega? What would be the best move?

 

Today:

tp-link router>BJC Cat6>macmini thunderbolt port (not bridged, but internet shared)>macmini ethernet port>Qed Performance Ethernet Graffite>SMS-200Ultra>Audioquest Carbon>Vega

 

 

 

I had not seen this thread before.

 

Given you already have the sMS-200ultra, you can do a lot for $1500 without changing you Mac Mini. I’ll post some recommendations in a bit, but first - what voltage is your sMS-200ultra? What PSU is powering the sMS-200ultra?

[austinpop]

We now know a lot better how to isolate upstream noise, thanks to John Swenson's findings with switches and ground shunts. For reference, see:

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/35129-a-novel-way-to-massively-improve-the-sq-of-the-microrendu-ultrarendu/?do=findComment&comment=723196

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/37034-smps-and-grounding/?do=findComment&comment=723185

 

I'm a firm believer in value for money, and building on what you already have. With the sMS-200ultra and the sPS-500, you already have a firm foundation. You also have 2 unused clock points on the sCLK-EX board in the Ultra. I would recommend the following chain:

• MacMini > modded Netgear GS105 (your choice) > sMS-200ultra > modded tX-USBhubEX > DAC

You would be using the 2 remaining sCLK-EX points for the switch and the tX-USBhubEX respectively. The latter effectively gives you a tX-USBultra. In my experience, both the the modded switch AND the tX improve SQ over the base improvements you got from the sMS-200ultra.

 

Coupled with the above, it is very important to use the best PSUs you can afford, and make sure they are shunted to ground, as John describes, especially the PSU powering the switch.

 

So in summary:

1. send sMS-200ultra and a Netgear switch ($30) to SOtM
2. modify sMS-200ultra to expose 2 clock taps - 25MHz for the switch, 24MHz for the tX. These will be 2 SMB ports on the back of the chassis.
3. have them add the reference clock input for future clock upgrade. This will be a BNC input port on the back. This is $200 for future proofing. I highly recommend it.
4. add a tX-USBhubEX to your SOtM order, and have them mod it to accept the 24MHz clock from the sMS-200ultra
5. have them mod the Netgear switch to accept the sCLK-EX 25MHz clock, as well a upgrade the regulators and capacitors
6. assuming the sMS-200ultra and the modded tX-USBhubEX are 12V, you should be able to share a single sPS-500 between them - although check with May first.
7. Get a good  PSU like the LPS-1 to power the modded switch.
8. Get the grounding right. Note that the sPS-500 output is already shunted (i.e. DC negative terminal is shunted to ground), as confirmed by SOtM.
   • Shunt the DC input to the switch, even if the PSU is an LPS-1
   • Shunt DC output of the energizing Meanwell SMPS for the LPS-1

All of this should come in within, or very close to $1500, and should give you a profound improvement.

[austinpop]

4 hours ago, Advieira said:

 

Thank you for recommendations.

 

i’m using direct connection as suggested by romaz, though I couldnt create a bridge to thunderbolt port and I just shared the internet (I suppose the quality should be the same, or not?).

So, my macmini works like the switch, comnected direct to sms200 ultra.

 

Dont I will lose the improvements of direct connection if I use a switch instead?

 

Please take a look at the index in the first post of this thread:

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/30376-a-novel-way-to-massively-improve-the-sq-of-computer-audio-streaming/

 

You can use the index to explore. In particular, look at these 2 links:

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/30376-a-novel-way-to-massively-improve-the-sq-of-the-sms-200-and-microrendu/?do=findComment&comment=633020

 

And

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/30376-a-novel-way-to-massively-improve-the-sq-of-the-sms-200-and-microrendu/?do=findComment&comment=659870

 

to understand that the switch appears to impact SQ favorably due to the clock mod. The switch is there only for this reason, not for switching purposes.

[austinpop]

11 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

 

In this situation I would recommend not using a switch.  If there is an opportunity to not use a piece of hardware with potential noise characteristics then I personally prefer not to introduce that device.  This is a personal choice and decision.  Others may differ, but in my opinion adding a functionally unnecessary device is used to modify the sound signature through noise shaping.  For better or worse is up to the listener to decide.

 

I’ll leave it to the OP @Advieira to decide. 

 

I also suggest the OP go through the findings in the massive thread via the index, to decide for himself.

[austinpop]

8 hours ago, Advieira said:

 

I've talked with Kamal, from SOTM USA, he said can do all its stuff for US$ 1.050 (modding the sms200ultra 2 clock and master clock + sotm switch mod + TX-USB-hubEx mod + Y cable). And I'm inclined to do all, but let me ask you more questions:

 

- SMS200ultra cleans and clock the signal from server. Is there sense in clock it again? My first concerns was about to clean the signal prior the sms200ultra, in the server or in the mid of server and sms200ultra.

I mean, that US$ 1k more would bring real sound quality returns? I was very impressed with the sms200ultra from the first moment I plugged it between my mac mini and the dac.

 

I'm already using the direct connections suggested by Romaz (bridging the ethernet/thunderbolt ports). 

 

I wonder if it is possible to have a new clear and noticeable increase in sound quality as I had with the SMS200ultra.

 

 

Since you have heard the improvement wrought by the sMS-200ultra, think of the modded switch and tX-USB as "more of the same."

 

Please actually read the links I sent you in my previous post here: https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/37329-building-a-pc-to-improve-sms-200-ultra/?do=findComment&comment=758767

 

If you don't, you are missing the context.

 

[austinpop]

On 1/2/2018 at 12:20 AM, FredM said:

 

Thank you for sharing this keen setup, by reusing the EX clock in the SMS Ultra one gets the TX USB Ultra performance ánd add a clock modded switch for about the price of a single TX USB Ultra. Very smart!

 

This setup even enables the option to use a dx-USB HD (instead of the tX-USBhub) after the SMS-200 Ultra so an coax output is created. I'll have a look around how the dx-USB HD compairs to the tX-USBhub, I guess it will be also DAC dependant (what is the quality /march with the Coax respectively USB input)

 

I'm afraid I missed this post at the time, but hopefully better late than never!

 

It's very hard to compare the dX-USB HD Ultra with the tX-USBultra, since you are also (necessarily) changing the DAC input from USB to coax/Toslink/AES. So it boils down to which input the DAC is best at. If you have a DAC whose USB input is known to sound superior to its S/PDIF input, then absolutely, the tX-USBultra  is the way to go.

 

I have heard the dX-USB HD ultra in a friend's system, outputting AES to his Yggdrasil DAC. Suffice it to say the benefit of sCLK-EX is very evident in this path too. Ultimately, the answer of which one is best is: it depends.

 

Quote

As for the recommendation for adding a BNC clock input for an even better Clock then the EX, do you perhaps know if a better external Clock would also be a direct upgrade for the other connected devices (tX-USBhub and switch)? Or would the additional external clock only be beneficial for the one device it is connected with?

 

Yes, absolutely, that is the beauty of the sCLK-EX approach. Think about what the sCLK-EX board is. It is a clock frequency synthesizer, with the ability to simultaneously generate 4 independent frequencies, that are programmable - usually by SOtM, although I suppose with the right tools and the instructions, others can do it too. This synthesizer is driven by an onboard 10 MHz reference oscillator. SOtM haven't published specs for this oscillator that I'm aware, but clearly it is of good enough quality to yield the reported SQ improvements.

 

The final piece of this architecture is the fact that the sCLK-EX board can accept an external reference clock, via its master clock input, to override the internal oscillator. This is where external OCXO clocks like the Mutec Ref 10 and Cybershaft come into play. Some of these external clocks have astoundingly low phase noise. Attaching a reference clock of this quality not only raises the quality of the sCLK-EX proportionately, it does so on all its outputs.

 

So yes - an external reference clock improves all the devices in the chain that are driven from that sCLK-EX board.

[austinpop]

1 hour ago, Advieira said:

 

Hi Austin, I´m modding the sms200ultra 2 and buying Tx-USBhubex mod and switch modded, just like you said. I will order too a Y cable for my SPS-500 power Ultra and Tx-Usbhub.

 

Awesome! I hope you enjoy the SQ improvements.

 

1 hour ago, Advieira said:

After doing that, do you think it would be worth modifying the mac mini with uptone MMK kit and boot for a SD 2000x card? or will it be silly and not worth the investment? To power the mini I was thinking a new SPS-500, which can deliver 12V, 5A continuous. Or maybe a chinese toroidal LPSU. But I do not know if after doing all clock and switch and usb mods, a LPSU for a mac mini can improve anything audible.

What do you think?

 

I have not personally had any experience with Mac Mini and the MMK mods, although I have only heard good things about it.

 

One would think that with the modded chain in place, and proper ground shunting, you should be immune to anything upstream of your chain. In my experience, this is still not the case. BUT - again, in my experience, as this may be system dependent - the impact of the upstream changes is muted, and subtle at best. Here are 2 concrete things that still make an impact in my system - upstream of my modded, shunted switch:

• A bridged Ethernet connection. For details, look at the first post index here.
• Running Audiophile Optimizer and Process Lasso on Windows 10 on my upstream Roon Core
• Even further upstream, I have ground-shunted LPSes on my router, and my NAS.

These improvement are still audible, but not of the magnitude of the clock and PSU improvements closer to the DAC.

 

So eventually - yes, everything matters, but whether they are worth the cost is debatable.