Building a PC to improve SMS-200 Ultra

[Johnseye]

19 minutes ago, Advieira said:

 

Do you know if its possible to install Rock in a fanless NUC Celeron?||
Many serious audiophile devices, like Aurender, uses simple and small motherboard fanless and not too powerful processor.

 

Yes you can install Rock on a fanless Celeron NUC.

[Johnseye]

8 minutes ago, ismewor said:

Yes, you sure can do this with all native support. However if you want to use up sampling it will be different story.

 

You can even upsample with that proc, just not DSD256 or 512

[Johnseye]

4 minutes ago, ismewor said:

Yes, been there done that. I have the US distribution done the mod for me on Sotm. since they are really skilled. I also done it compare with different module like Pink Faun's and also compare all together with SGM 2015 as well. 

What i can conclude is even with the clock an True LPS is a must for this setup. I mean true ATX LPS. without that it is just like a ferrari feeding them with propane. 

 

What ATX LPS?

[Johnseye]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

 

Which sadly makes it worthless.

 

Some think DSD512 is great and some don't. Some DACs do it well some don't. To say every other format but DSD512 is worthless is short sighted. One could easily say vinyl is superior and you see what road we go down with that kind of attitude. 

[Johnseye]

1 hour ago, TopQuark said:

 

I am talking about the process of adding a clock board in a generic mobo.  The EX is just an upgrade of the std sCLK.  It's been done before. 

 

Who has done it before? I know of no other instance where USB system clocks designed for audio through filter and noise improvements, were used to replace motherboard clocks. 

 

If you can point me in that direction with a link or reference I would seriously like to see it. 

[Johnseye]

41 minutes ago, TopQuark said:

It was done back in the CAPS Zuma days few years ago somewhere from tirnahifi if I remember.  More recently, it's done on sms-200ultra of course but then it becomes a question of the OS - Windows, Rock, Linux, etc.  I think Roy preferred Windows over Linux but that was before Rock is where it is now.

 

 

CAPS Zuma used the tx-USBexp.  USB clocks were used and may have been improved on the PCI board, but not on the motherboard.  No system clocks were replaced.

 

The sms product line is not the same.  It's an endpoint.  If it could host the application processing the music that would be one thing, but it's not.

 

I don't know what Roy's preference of Windows has anything to do with this, but ROCK isn't any further today than it was two weeks ago when Roy posted last, or even a month or two ago.  That digresses from the question of whether any motherboard has been built with audiophile clocks.

[Johnseye]

11 hours ago, TopQuark said:

It is somewhere here: http://www.tirnahifi.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1494&start=2070#top

 

I cannot find the review but is it 2 mobo clock replacement from this photo:

 

 

Thank you.  I hadn't known someone else tried this as Frankenstein as it is.  I'm guessing he cleaned it up, but it was 5 years ago.  So there is one instance of someone else in the world who's done this before.

 

6 hours ago, TopQuark said:

 

The sms is a just another motherboard with a CPU. Not sure what you mean by hosting application processing. That was implemented in software. One can play audio today by just loading the audio in the microSD card or external USB drive to sms and let it sing.  Just like a RPi, it can act as a renderer/endpoint or a server or both.  It's the software.

 

It's an endpoint.  Roon core isn't running on it.  If you're aware of a way that the sMS-200 can run Roon core, please share.  Seriously, I'd really like to know because for me that's a big win.

 

6 hours ago, TopQuark said:

Again, you have to look at it in the context of Roon which I don't think you are using. Roon server uses a lot of resources unless you just want it to play music without further processing but that is not Roon.  But to use it just to play audio without processing, the surrounding components have to be top notch costing order of magnitude more just like Roys than a typical setup.  A typical Roon set-up will have some sort of DSP either for room correction, upsampling, or just volume leveling.  With those cases, Celeron is not going to work.  The subject of the matter here is alternative to a mac mini!  He already has his "Celeron" in sms-200Ultra.

 

I am using Roon.  I've used ROCK, Windows Server 2012R2 and 2016 with AO and Fidelizer.  I have used Roon's DSP to upsample along with other functions and I use HQPlayer to upsample using a motherboard with its proc and memory clock dumbed down to 800MHz.  Unless you need to upsample to DSD256 or 512 it will work just fine.  Have you tried it?

 

 

10 hours ago, ismewor said:

Yes, it is. But base on this I  guarantee it won’t go far. 

And the  only commercial product with good mobo clock replacement is SGM2015

 

That SGM2015 is impressive.  I wasn't aware of a commercially available server with customized board.  OCXO clock and Mundorf caps. Very nice.  It looks like they only replace the system clock and not ethernet or USB.  They use a high powered proc with a lot of RAM.  Enough to do DSD256 and 512 so if that's your game this thing will work well.  If you don't need DSD256/512 then you're just introducing more noise from the proc and RAM.  I wonder if its USB is as good as SOtM's or if they use the mobo's USB.  If it's the mobo's USB and they didn't modify those clock there's a shortfall, and based on their picture it looks like they use the mobo's USB.   Not sure what their low noise, high powered PSU is and whether it's an LPSU. 

[Johnseye]

Just now, octaviars said:

 

As I know you are geting a Jetway mobo modified by SOtM what OS will you be runing on that? Have you found a favorit OS?

 

How did you feel Roon worked when it is scaning the library with a slower CPU?

 

 

 

I'll be running Windows Server 2016.

 

My initial library was built with my current server at a higher proc frequency.  When I add new music to the library it doesn't take long at all.  Not sure how long it would take if I rebuilt the library.

[Johnseye]

34 minutes ago, TopQuark said:

 

sMS-200 is not going to run Roon core.  It is just Roon Ready and act as medium for Roon core.  The point I was alluding more to Caprice point that, if the OP want a low power mobo and sCLK-EX which is an excellent clock, the OP already has it today in sms-200ultra.  That's all.  sms-200 can act like an endpoint/server if you attach an external USB drive and use MPD, minim, bubble or other delivery medium that is available in Eunhasu.  Roon can develop Roon core into sms-200Ultra if they want to.  It is just an ARM CPU but it does not have the horsepower needed to maximize the power of Roon core.  The sms-200ultra hardware functions the same as to what Caprice is talking about with Jetway and sCLK-EX.  The limitation is really just the software.

 

 

Yes, it is going to work if you cut all of those. No question about it.  The OP already has a mac-mini that does the work of Roon core and an sMS-200ultra that delivers unadulterated audio and not diluted with other CPU hog like building album library, HQPlayer upsampling, etc.  Should the OP sell his sms-200ultra and mac-mini and replace both with a low power Celeron in a generic board + sCLK-EX?  At the least, sell his sMS-200ultra and replace it with Celeron and keep the mac mini to run Roon core?  That is where I mentioned that he already has his low power "Celeron" and sCLK-EX in sms-200ultra.

 

Now we're getting somewhere. Anyone using an sMS-200 still needs a backend server. That backend server also has a significant impact on the sound regardless of whether you use an endpoint or not. There is nothing magical about an endpoint, it is merely a filter. Simply stated of course. 

 

One major point of building a low noise server is to eliminate the endpoint. This was Roy's goal and something I've been after for a long time. Fortunately Roy paved the way for many of us who choose this path through his research and investments. 

[Johnseye]

1 hour ago, TopQuark said:

 

Any reason why Intel NUC is not an option?  For one, only Intel NUC's are guaranteed to work with Rock.  I checked the price of the Aliexpress i5 htpc above.  With 4gb RAM and 128gb SSD, the cost is $343.  That is close to Intel NUC territory if you'll get the i5 that is 1 version older than the current one like the NUC6i5SYK for example.  https://kb.roonlabs.com/Roon_Optimized_Core_Kit

 

 

Not sure what "guarantee" means. ROCK will work with your standard Intel platform. 

 

Dont get me wrong, I like NUCs but you have limitations and can't customize them very much. 

[Johnseye]

4 hours ago, Advieira said:

 

 

Someone tell me there´s no difference between chines htpc and sonic transporter i5.

 

There's nothing special about the Sonic Transporter. You're right in  that the board from that PC is Chinese made but that shouldn't matter other than that it may have low quality parts. . It's just a low frills board

[Johnseye]

9 hours ago, TopQuark said:

 

Rock will NOT work with just any standard Intel platform.  Some BIOS are not compatible with Rock.  Roon Server will work with about any Intel platform but not Rock.  Rock was developed using Intel NUC from the beginning.  That's the reason Roon only sell NUC's in Nucleus.  The Rock page even puts a big warning for using non-NUC platform:

 

"If you do manage to get it to run, that's great, but we can not guarantee it will continue to work with future builds. Consider yourself warned."

 

Link here: https://kb.roonlabs.com/Roon_Optimized_Core_Kit

 

It's a specific Linux distro, built by them.  They don't want to develop drivers and test it with all the possible hardware options, and they will also want to sell their hardware.  I wouldn't worry about any guarantee, it just means they didn't test and their drivers may not compatible.  So there's a risk.

 

If you want to use HQPlayer, ROCK is not an option.  If you want to use any other applications, ROCK is not an option.  Personally, I liked how ROCK sounded.  But I also like using HQPlayer and JRiver.

 

9 hours ago, TopQuark said:

 Since the NUC bandwidth will be used only for album library, upscaling, convolution, etc. and not audio delivery, further modifications in hardware is not going to make significance in SQ. sMS-200ultra will be doing that for you.

 

 

Further modifications in hardware is not going to make significance in SQ??  This is flat out wrong regardless of OS.  Sorry.

[Johnseye]

57 minutes ago, TopQuark said:

 

NO, it is not a distro. Sorry to say, please state only facts and not your own opinion so it will not confuse those reading this thread.  Danny Dulai explained it in more detail in the forum. He created a custom kernel and used part of Linux (not the distribution) just to allow the OS to access utilities since those are already well established.  The rest was constructed from scratch and created just for audio.  I was even the one who asked him about this!

 

https://community.roonlabs.com/t/rock-what-linux-distribution-answered-there-is-no-3rd-party-os/21613

 

Yea, it is a distro.  It's just developed by Roon.

 

 

57 minutes ago, TopQuark said:

 

If you are not worried about guarantee, then it helps to be reminded of what ROCK developer said to everyone - "Consider yourself warned".  He's not going to create the next version of ROCK based on another generic motherboard.  He will continue to develop it on an Intel NUC.  It's as simple as this.

 

So what?  You either limit your hardware by Roon Rock or you find something that works with it, but you don't need to corner yourself into using a NUC just because that's what they "guarantee".

 

57 minutes ago, TopQuark said:

 

 

This is your choice and I respect it.  You mentioned earlier you are using Roon.  Now, it is JRiver.  Everyone has their own preference.  I am not trying to sway you towards ROCK.  I am just stating what ROCK is capable of and it seems that not a lot are familiar with it.  I like HQPlayer myself.  I respect what Jussi has done.  He did a magnificent job and he will keep on raising the bar.  But let's face it.  ROCK has it's own HQPlayer features and more.  Some dropped HQPlayer in favor of ROCK for it's utmost simplicity, integration, and other new features.  High end features in HQPlayer does not yet exist in ROCK but Roon team is going to that direction.

 

Yes, I use Roon and HQPlayer.  I've used JRiver for a lot longer and like some features and functions of it.  If I were to abandon the use of HQPlayer and JRiver I might just use Rock.  But right now and unless Roon can at least match what HQPlayer is doing with filters, the better option is HQPlayer and so Windows.

 

57 minutes ago, TopQuark said:

 

Again, let's make sure we are in the right context in saying this.  The hardware I am talking about is the Roon server in a generic motherboard or ROCK.  Both are connected through an ethernet cable to the sMS-200ultra.  The sMS-200ultra is connected to the DAC, reclocker, or any other converter used through USB.  The sMS-200ultra, a motherboard that contains sCLK-EX and other goodies who knows what that SOtM added, is the type of hardware that can significantly affect SQ if not properly implemented.  SOtM did the hardware mod already for better SQ to the motherboard.  The Roon server and ROCK are outside of the direct connection to DAC, reclocker, etc.  They just serve audio library creation and CPU hungry convolution.

 

This is where you're wrong.  Everything upstream has an impact.  The sMS does not magically make it all go away.

 

57 minutes ago, TopQuark said:

 

In your generic Jetway motherboard, you had it directly connected to the DAC reclocker, or any other converter used through USB.  In your case, modifications in hardware IS going to make a significant difference. Roon Server and audio delivery running in a single box requires careful design to optimize the SQ.  SOtM already did that in sms-200ultra.  It is a purpose built motherboard just for better audio.  The motherboard was built from scratch and not another generic Intel motherboard.  Some decided to go with sMS-200ultra to avoid re-inventing the wheel.  Adding sCLK-EX is one thing.  What about use of better audio grade capacitors, motherboard layout optimized for audio, power filter, etc.?  I can't say the same thing in a generic Jetway motherboard.  Sorry.

 

I have an sMS-200, an ISO Regen and I use them now.  I know what they do.  My new Jetway board will have its clocks replaced and the USB card on it will have the same clock as the sMS-200ultra and I could even use a tx-USBultra which is the same clock.

 

The point here which somehow you're missing, is that by improving the clocks on the motherboard, not to mention providing it good clean power, the sound quality is improved further even if you use an sMS-200.  SOtM can change the caps and regulators as well.  My approach to using the SOtM USB card in the PC is to eliminate the endpoint.  This has been proven by multiple people.  Not sure why you're struggling with it but I"m done trying to explain it.  Hopefully the OP got some benefit from this back and forth, and my apologies to him it.

[Johnseye]

9 minutes ago, TopQuark said:

 

Let the readers decide that.  I already provided my link from the mouth of the Roon author himself.

 

He said it wasn't based on another distro.  They wrote their own. 

 

9 minutes ago, TopQuark said:

 

 

As I mentioned, I am just trying to correct misinformation about ROCK.  I do respect your decision in your choice of hardware as you see fits. I know you feel strongly about your chosen hardware but why this negative sentiment?  Again, I am just the messenger here so I posted the links from Roon author himself that he is NOT going to develop ROCK other than NUC and provided the warning. I didn't make my own opinion.  I could have made one but I didn't because, like assholes, everybody has one.

 

I was pointing out you don't need a NUC.  You definitely have an opinion or there wouldn't be this conversation. 

 

9 minutes ago, TopQuark said:

 

I didn't say there isn't an impact.  Isn't it?  I am saying that it is not as significant impact as the unit that is connected to the DAC or re-clocker or converter because it is further out from the chain.

 

How would you know?

 

9 minutes ago, TopQuark said:

 

 

Wait a minute here. The subject matter has changed. "..even if you use an sMS-200".  So now, there is the sMS-200 in the equation.  I was referring to a single box solution that is being suggested here that replaces the OP's mac-mini and sMS-200ultra.

 

No it hasn't. You missed the point again. 

 

9 minutes ago, TopQuark said:

 

This has been proven by multiple people?  I'm sure there are more of you other than yourself, Caprice, and Roy.  Roy is using a $10,000 Chord Dave that is non-delta sigma and non-R2R that does it's own noise filtering in the FPGA that is like over 100Mhz so he is getting the result he want without further upsampling.  Each set-up is unique in itself and one does not apply to everyone else.  Again, I have nothing about your choice.  I will say it again that I respect your choice.  It's just that I am straightening out the facts with the links to the references from the source.

 

 

Apologies to the OP too. I hope this will provide him enough material to come up with an informed decision.

 

 

Yes you have pointed out multiple people. 

 

It is a personal  choice, that's all. Just keeping the facts straight as well. 

 

Sorry I had to respond. 

[Johnseye]

9 minutes ago, TopQuark said:

 

Technically, packets are blocked from the subnet set-up and the CPU is running only for its intended purpose - just album library creation and convolution. 

 

 

Packets are blocked from the subnet? Wrong. 

 

9 minutes ago, TopQuark said:

 

Have I heard it?  Yes, in various server configurations - in a NAS, SmartOS dedicated server, Arch Linux, Windows server, Atom CPU, Pentium, etc.  With a modded clock in a server?  No. 

 

 

Your answer is no to my question. You have not heard it therefore you can not say one way is better than the other. 

 

9 minutes ago, TopQuark said:

The server is connected to the renderer through ethernet cable. I am already using the modded clock in the switch coming from the spare clock from sMS-200ultra clock.  Someone here already said it themselves, you can try all the clock mods you can all the way up to the main switch and router.  The further you go away from the DAC, the less impact will it be. I believe these are even Roy's remarks.

 

It did because never in the discussion was sMS-200ultra included until now.  It's always been a single server box both functioning as Roon Server and renderer like in Jetway generic mobo.  Now that you have added sMS-200ultra in the chain and talk about adding a server box (mac mini, NUC, even Jetway, etc.) that is all together a different animal.

 

My point was that upgrading the mobo clocks will have a positive impact regardless. You're telling the OP that all he needs is the sms-200 and his PC doesn't matter. 

 

9 minutes ago, TopQuark said:

 

 

[Johnseye]

There is so much misinformation in your post I'm not going to bother. Hopefully the OP figures it out. 

[Johnseye]

On 10/20/2017 at 5:05 PM, ismewor said:

Yes, been there done that. I have the US distribution done the mod for me on Sotm. since they are really skilled. I also done it compare with different module like Pink Faun's and also compare all together with SGM 2015 as well. 

What i can conclude is even with the clock an True LPS is a must for this setup. I mean true ATX LPS. without that it is just like a ferrari feeding them with propane. 

 

@ismewor I got a quote for the SGM 2015.  It's 16,000 euros which is about $18,800 USD.  It only has its system clock modified.  No USB card, it uses the motherboard's USB.  They claim the power supply is special.  I don't think any power supply is better than the Hynes SR7 but based on what I know, a server sold at that price point is laughable and the reason why we're all building our own instead of finding something reasonable in the market.

 

Not sure if you responded, but what "true ATX LPS" are you referring to?

[Johnseye]

Here's the software they include with the SGM 2015.  At least we know that's about $800 in software.

 

1/ Lifetime subscription to Roon

2/ HQPlayer

3/ Windows 10 (Custom build, stripped of all unnecessary features)

4/ Process Lasso (for app priority and management of CPU cores)

[Johnseye]

1 hour ago, ismewor said:

True ATX LPS is no switching power in the chains of the Server. Which include but not limit to the following 24pin, 8pin, usb card, Sata Power, Clock power, Molex. hope it help.

 

I was asking for an actual product.  I know what an LPS is.  I don't know of one that can power an ATX server with a pin layout Elvia described.

 

28 minutes ago, ElviaCaprice said:

Your going to have to do better than that.  What power supply, supplies are you suggesting?  In particular the 24pin and 8pin.  How are you accounting for the switching power within the mobo itself, outside the 24 pin?   By the way, I don't disagree with this, but I have not seen a commercial or privately made mobo that accomplishes your so called "True ATX LPS" as you so define it as "no switching power in the chains of the server".  Please point us to some mobo's with this feature, reasonable priced, not some ridiculous boutique pricing?

 

Exactly.  

[Johnseye]

15 hours ago, ismewor said:

Absolutely I agree it can do better. but My ATX LPS idea is direct connect to the mobo 24 & 8 pins. Mobo internal regulator which might be able to replace. but not at my level and i don't want to take a risk just yet.

 

So it's just an idea, you don't know of any LPS that can power an ATX motherboard?  I know of a way to do it with either a PICO or HDPlex adapter, but I have been looking for a way to do it cleanly and directly from an LPS.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with you that it's the best solution, but to my knowledge it doesn't exist right now.

[Johnseye]

13 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Wtf are you guys talking about? HDPlex sells one with native ATX outputs for $800 and there's a TeraDak for $530 that uses an ATX adapter.

 

Yes, I think the unspoken point was a very good LPSU.

[Johnseye]

7 hours ago, TopQuark said:

 

If one want to use Roon with convolution, this set-up is not going to work.  This was discussed already a million times in this thread.

 

Roy is searching for the ultimate of the ultimate.  When you say "not equal SQ", you have to listen it yourself or quantify it and not post it because Roy said this and because Roy said that.  Roy is in a different league in all of this.  His set-up is NOT the same as yours.  You have to listen to it and not just spread the gospel of the greatness of single server if you haven't listened to trifecta which you yourself admitted you have not heard!

 

Dang internet! What have thou done!

 

 

LOL.  Wow, *facepalm*

[Johnseye]

 

42 minutes ago, phusis said:

 

Well put, TopQuark. 

 

I’ve pointed to the problem of this before - i.e.: copy-pasting the findings of poster @romaz in particular as universal gospel - and it’s a shame really if this should in any way reflect negatively on Roy’s contributions, which have been a help and an inspiration to many. To reiterate: help and inspiration (as in what would allow people to come to better sonic results also via their own interaction and experience), not merely blind following. I’m sure great, or even sublime results can be had with the single server approach (not least perhaps when the monetary ceiling is, well.. lofty?), obviously, but when considering the context of different aspects, including price, one option over the other (vs. Ethernet-based playback) may not see easy preference going by sound quality. Indeed, battling over and being a strong proponent of which route to take bears the scent of brand- or approach-territoriality, which is not that far off from worshipping individual efforts.. In any case, isn’t it wonderful there are different paths to come by in search of great SQ? 

 

While I think a lot of people respected and anticipated the results of Roy's tests, to the point where many copied what he was doing, I think worship is a bit extreme.  Actually it's weird to even insinuate it.

 

Many people have tried a large variety of options to improve sound quality.  What I've found is that most people here are just looking for the next best thing to try.  As soon as someone says they found some hardware, software or configuration that makes a positive impact then they want to try it.  I would place a large bet that much of the equipment you use was purchased based on what you read in a review by someone here, another forum, a local store or in a magazine review.  To blindly purchase something in this hobby is foolish.

 

When someone suggests not to take a leap forward, but to stick with a previously tried and known model as what I've been hearing in this thread from TopQuark, then I ask why.  Why would you limit yourself and not try different solutions.  The single server approach as @ElviaCaprice and I have been discussing isn't expensive at all.  You don't need a Chord DAVE for this approach.  I personally don't understand any resistance to trying a server with sCLK-EX modded clocks.  Adhering to an endpoint approach without knowing anything about a direct approach is folly.  In the end, both approaches could result in the same sound quality because they are both using the sCLK-EX.  If that's the case why the resistance?

[Johnseye]

5 hours ago, TopQuark said:

 

Who said I stick with tried and known model?  I am not advocating a particular set-up. I am just answering the OP who already has sMS-200ultra.  Your suggestion to replace his sMS-200ultra with a single box server IS more expensive because he has to sell his sMS-200ultra and his mac mini at a loss for a cheap generic Jetway mobo with Realtek ethernet that you are advocating.

 

Here we go again.  If you don't think you're advocating a particular setup then I can't help you.  You're clearly advocating the sMS-200 endpoint approach.  Also, the OP never said he wanted to save money.  He said "upgrade my transport/source system.  I want to change the mac mini for a mini PC optmized to best transport and roon server."  So who cares about spending an extra $300 on a motherboard, hard drive and memory?  He can even use the sCLK-EX from his sMS-200ultra as taps for his mobo clocks if he wants.

 

With regard to the modified server motherboard, whether it's a Jetway or not and whether it's the OP or anyone else, by modifying the upstream system and ethernet clocks, better sound quality will be achieved.  The output will still be an sCLK-EX.  It could be a tx-USBexp (using the sCLK), an sMS-200ultra or a tx-USBultra.  With the sCLK-EX at both the delivery point to the DAC and on the motherboard, and even the switch will be an increase in sound quality.

 

I truly hope people reading this understand my last point.  This is exactly why TopQuark's posts are misinformation.  By having an endpoint as the sMS-200ultra it doesn't magically change what has been done by the upstream clocks.  I'm also not saying not to use an sMS-200ultra, I'm saying upgrade as many upstream clocks as you can afford.

 

 

5 hours ago, TopQuark said:

 

I gave you my answer. He has it already in sMS-200ultra. Don't play with your "endpoint" semantics. The sMS-200ultra contains an audiophile mobo + cpu + ram + usb + sCLK-EX.  This is better than your generic Jetway mobo + cpu + ram + usb + sCLK-EX because the sMS-200ultra was designed for audiophile audio from the ground up with better filters and capacitors and not the desktop Jetway mobo you are advocating that uses generic components. The difference is really only the software.

 

Again, don't take this out of context on what the OP raised from the original thread.  The title says "Building a PC to improve sMS-200 Ultra". He has sMS-200ultra and wants Roon.  It's bad advise to let him sell what he already has - mac mini and sMS-200ultra - and propose a solution that was tried by you and Caprice because it is the best in what you have tried.  Worst is, as far as I can tell, none of you have listened to the trifecta set-up yet.

 

 

You still miss the point that whether you use the sMS-200ultra as the endpoint a server is needed and that impacts the sound received by the endpoint.  I don't know if you truly don't get this, or you just love to debate.

 

By the way, updating the system clocks on the mobo and switch while still using a tx-USBex/tx-USBultra/sMS-200/ISO Regen or all of the above will still be better than what you don't think you're advocating.

 

Do you understand what I'm saying?  If you do, this shouldn't be a debate.  I'm not against the sMS-200ultra, I think it can be improved.

[Johnseye]

4 minutes ago, TopQuark said:

 

If you keep on putting words in my mouth I cannot just let that go.

 

Yes, I do. -  For the set-up that the OP is looking for in this thread.  I thought you already got this by now.

 

But single server means replacing his mac-mini and sMS-200ultra.  This is not about saving money. It's about losing it and he already has a very good system.  What you are suggesting now to ADD a server in conjunction with sMS-200ultra is not what you were originally advocating.

 

If I put words in your mouth I would quote what you typed.  I quoted what the OP wanted.

 

Go back and read my posts.  You're probably confusing what I've posted with someone else.  My server has always had an sCLK-EX involved in one way or another.  As I've repeatedly said it doesn't matter whether it's an sMS-200ultra or any other device using the sCLK-EX.  The point is that the sCLK-EX being used, is not only for the device connecting to the DAC but devices upstream like the mobo.  

 

 

4 minutes ago, TopQuark said:

 

Precisely!  Use the remaining 24 Mhz clock for his mac-mini instead of the generic Jetway mobo. This is after the sMS-200ultra in the chain so the laws of diminishing return is something the OP will take into consideration.

 

If he'd want his Mac mini modified sure, why not.

 

4 minutes ago, TopQuark said:

 

I can't agree with you more.  Again, "better SQ can be achieved" is not a relative term.  When stating "server motherboard", just need to clear if it is the server after the sMS-200ultra or the server after the DAC because there is a difference how much better SQ each can achieve.

 

Misinformation? I hope readers read the previous posts. I am just a messenger. I provided references to the facts and not just what "I think".  

 

What a change of tone - from a singler server generic Jetway mobo, now to "upgrade as many upstream clocks as you can afford".  I hope you meant "downstream" or we will go around in circle again.  As I mentioned earlier, components that are farther away from the DAC, the least likely the returns will be.
 

 

Point out where I said Jetway mobo based server only.  Link it or quote it.  Upstream to the endpoint would be the server, downstream would be the DAC.  I meant upstream.  Maybe you should try modifying your server's system clocks yourself instead of arguing against it.

 

 

4 minutes ago, TopQuark said:

 

No, you don't get it.  You don't need another server. I already explained this to you. You can run sMS-200ultra as a standalone server if you want by connecting a USB drive to one of the USB ports and it will act as a DLNA server.  But that is beside the point because, I was just explaining to you that the sMS-200ultra is your generic Jetway motherboard and even better but the software is the difference.

 

The Jetway mobo you are suggesting uses generic components, Realtek ethernet, generic regulator, generic capacitors, etc.

 

The sMS-200ultra uses a dedicated ARM processor board specifically developed for only audio use, low power dual core AMD chip, ultra-low jitter clock overriden by sCLK-EX, ultra-low noise regulator, active noise canceller, and audio grade USB output port.

 

Why push for the generic Jetway when the OP already has the sMS-200ultra and mac-mini?

 

Maybe if you don't want to use Roon, but that was the OP's ask so yea, you need another server.

 

4 minutes ago, TopQuark said:

I hate debate but I cannot tolerate misinformation and insinuations.  But I don't to take this any further.  The OP already made a wise decision.

 

LOL.  Of course, it will.  You can also say, updating the clock in your router and modem will be better.  Again, you need to define and quantify "better".  How does it changes the shape of your sound, does it become more transparent and increases the soundstage or does it improve the dynamics of the highs and lows?  Is the change something that you prefer to listen? And to what cost?

 

This is the problem.  It's easy to go around in these forums and say my single generic Jetway mobo with sCLK-EX is "better".

 

Have you ever modified your motherboard's clocks with the sCLK-EX, or even heard another person's system who's done it?

 

4 minutes ago, TopQuark said:

 

Who said you are against it?  I am against recommendations using a generic Jetway mobo in place of sMS-200ultra + mac mini that the OP already has and plan to use Roon with it. 

 

Let's clarify, you're against using a Jetway mobo and a tx-USBexp with clocks modified by an sCLK-EX to start, because that's part of the approach and considering I've said other devices could follow between that and the DAC I'll just leave it at that.  For some reason you're stuck on that mac mini.  You need a refresher on what I've posted and I knew you'd respond this way because even when we have commonalities you still argue.