Audiolinux Server configurations, Software, Hardware, and Listening Impressions

[mourip]

1 hour ago, hifi25nl said:

New menu version 087 will introduce the option "isolated CPU cores". You can divide CPU cores in 2 sets: one for system process one for audio applications. This is the first step toward a complete separation of audio process from all the other.

 

 

 

 

The new script will change systemd audio service in a different version starting the application only in selected CPU cores: the service is renamed with the suffix "2"

 

 

In the Status menu you can check that all the threads are now running in the specified core(s)

 

 

Great. Have you discovered that doing this provides an increase in sound quality?

 

Do you think that this would be effective on an endpoint that has just two cores?

 

Is this only for actual cores or would it include hyper-threading also where 4 cores effectively show as 8?

[mourip]

On 1/14/2019 at 7:34 AM, hifi25nl said:

The script will disable hyper-threading after reboot with a kernel parameter. 

Yes it could work on 2 physical cores. 

 

It has been a long work, I have tested many ways to implement this. At last i have preferred a custom method more compatible with linux systemd  services and audiolinux menu system.

 

I am waiting for the results of user experimentation. I must find the time to listen myself...  

 

 

 

I have been thinking about your reply ever since you wrote it. 

 

I would first like to say that I have switched out both of my Roon endpoints to run AL in ramroot with no internal disks. I was able to pull out 4 SSDs by doing this. I also have now obtained SQ that is on a level with my Dante based system, which is in my mind an excellent achievement. For me AL SQ is not only excellent on an absolute level but is is also huge bang-for-the buck.

 

Now to my point. It is obvious that your involvement with AS(CA) has really enlivened your efforts. It has hopefully also accelerated your business. You are extremely responsive to suggestions and requests, not to mention helping with issues that arise from those of us unfamiliar with Linux itself.

 

I have one issue with your reply above. When asked if the changes you made to allow cpu cores to be dedicated for audio processes would improve sound quality for reply was: 

 

                      "I am waiting for the results of user experimentation. I must find the time to listen myself... "

I find this a bit troubling. Usually audio application creators come up with a potential idea, test it, and then offer it to users as proven. In this case you seem to have come up with a theory that might improve sound quality and then offered it as "live" for users to test for you. For me the issue here is that most users will assume that if you put an idea into production it will have proven and tested merit. They may then spend time working with it and sorting out bugs when there has been no evidence that it will ever give benefit.

 

I think that it is safe to say that everyone here is primarily interested in improvements in sound quality. Many here may also enjoy the chase since AS has a lot of very inquisitive audiophiles and computer gurus. To be clear, I enjoy the chase and see this as new learning however it is also already clear to me that we are beta testers for Audiolinux. I accept that, however some users may be led down a trail of frustration and quit before ever finding out how good your product is.

 

I would like to suggest that you always have two versions of your software. One should be clearly labeled "beta" and the other will be your well vetted final product. Let subscribed users have both versions and ask for feedback. Currently all of your live products are really in beta. You are asking users to let YOU know if new ideas work or not and if they result in an improvement in SQ. 

 

I hope that you will see these comments as helpful. Keep up the excellent work.

 

Paul

[mourip]

I am currently using Windows 10 Pro with Audiophile Optimizer to run Roon Core. I boot from an SSD and have a second SSD for my music files. My endpoint runs AL on a NUC with no internal drives. The sound is great.

 

Curiosity, as always, has gotten the best of me and I would like to try AL running Roon Core. My main concern is that I do not overwrite my current Windows setup. I know that in the past when I installed Roon Core then during the Roon desktop config wanted to reformat the music drive. If I boot to AL from a thumb drive, run Roon Core and next configure AL to mount my music drive, then when I go to run the Roon app and point to that drive, will Roon want to wipe it? I think that I read somewhere that if you are using a USB external drive then Roon will not reformat it. True?

 

Any tips?

[mourip]

Yesterday I commandeered one of my Roon endpoints to make an AL based Roon Core server. I booted to ramroot from the disk-less box and hooked up an external USB drive with a copy of my library on it. It sounds good but I do not have enough time on it to determine if it beats my current Win10/AO Core server.

 

Question: How do I access the drive to copy additional music to it. If I remember correctly AL has a shared folder but I cannot remember how to browse to it.

 

Thanks!

[mourip]

4 hours ago, bobfa said:

Sftp

Thanks!

 

I used WinSCP to have a GUI file browser. So far so good...

 

[mourip]

According to the Universal Source of Truth, aka Wikipedia, NUMA stands for the National Underwater and Marine Agency.

 

Does disabling NUMA offer a more liquid presentation?

[mourip]

On 4/12/2019 at 10:55 AM, lmitche said:

Piero, @hifi25nl

 

Everything sounds more relaxed, thanks for the enhancements!

 

Larry

 

Question. To get the new kernel with NUMA disabled can you just use the AL menu choice to update the kernel?

[mourip]

Thanks!

 

Seems to have worked however now when I try to re-enable ramroot now I get the error “Unable to determine root UUID”.

 

Any ideas?
 

[mourip]

35 minutes ago, LTG2010 said:

Try manually in console, the command: ramroot remove 

reboot then: ramroot -F enable

 

Same error from the commandline. I now have an email in to Piero.

 

Thanks!

[mourip]

19 minutes ago, rickca said:

Please let us know if you get this resolved.

 

I am not sure if I am more embarrassed or confused.

 

I seem to be booting to ramroot and am also on the new kernel version. I am pretty sure that I followed the correct steps to disable ramroot, update the kernel files, and reboot at which time I got that error when I tried to re-enable ramroot. Thinking back on my early experimenting with AL I believe that the error I received is one that comes when you are already in ramroot.

 

I guess that all is well that ends well?

[mourip]

2 hours ago, rickca said:

So does the command ramroot status indicate that you are in fact already running in ramroot?

Yes and USB drive pulled currently. Sounds great.

[mourip]

2 hours ago, lmitche said:

The ramroot setting state of the newly downloaded kernel supercedes the prior state of ramroot on a system as it overwrites the existing kernel. This setting can be set randomly to ramroot or not, although most often it seems set to ramroot. When set to ramroot, there is no reason to enable ramroot a second time.

 

 

 

That makes sense based upon what I experienced.

 

I did get a reply from Piero. His emphasis...

1) Boot to normal mode answering N to ramroot boot prompt
2) type
 ramroot remove 
on command line or use the menu option to do this
3) Reboot
4) Reinstall kernel with the menu option
5) Reboot
6) type
ramroot -F enable
on command line or use the menu option to do this
7) Reboot
 

 

[mourip]

1 hour ago, LTG2010 said:

I would say a slight increase in clarity. Isolating CPU cores, has a bigger effect in conjunction with Pieros expert menu script. Basically scroll down and delete all the hashtags in front of  "echo". I have a 4 core celeron, I isolated 3 cores for audio. Set boot to extreme and real time priority to standard. Max performance and turbo off. Also as my server is Ethernet out, I changed rtirq.conf from USB to eno1 (my Ethernet bridge out to DAC).

That with ramroot, comfortably beats any other OS I've tried, the clarity, dynamics, bass etc is stunning.

 

Thanks. What ethernet bridge are you using?

[mourip]

5 minutes ago, LTG2010 said:

My supermicro x10sba motherboard has 2 ports. They are clocked with sclk-ex. I was looking to upgrade the server bigger processor, jcat femto card etc. But following these results, there is no rush.

 

Thanks. I forgot that we were in the server thread! I was thinking ethernet to SPDIF converter for the endpoint.

 

I have bridged connections on my server, on board port and a PCIe Intel card. That made a very nice difference. I have a JCAT card ordered now based upon that success. Hoping that it will ship this week. I will power from one of my HDPlex outputs.

[mourip]

34 minutes ago, ronfint said:

I think that in case you have not displayed the whole menu on your screen, it is telling you how far down you have scrolled.

 

Thanks for that. It has always been confusing to see the results with the "OK" button enabled and also see what looks like a progress update number. Since the OK button was available and everything always seemed to work I just ignored it. It would probably be less confusing to just have a scroll bar on the side.

[mourip]

1 hour ago, Crom said:

...and having spent hours fiddling around...then posting a shout for help, I manage to find a solution within minutes of posting. Gah, how foolish do I feel. I'd somehow managed to switch off the IPv6 checkbox in HQPlayer config page! Problem solved. Music returned.

 

So...just for future reference, in HQ Player headless, does the interface get 'stuck' on the config page when there is a configuration problem?

 

Thanks all and sorry for disturbing!

 

Interesting. So HQ Player somehow uses IPv6? or at least needs it turned on?

 

I do not use HQP but always disable IPv6 on my PCs, both audio and other, since IPv4 works fine and I am always looking to reduce unused services.

[mourip]

Warning: subjective questions to follow.

 

I have been using AL for about a year. I am very happy with it and find Piero's support to be great. I am still on one of the last updates to version 1 although I recently purchase version 2. I have yet to install probably because version 1 sounds great.  I also wanted to show my appreciation and to support AL product development.

 

There are endless discussions here regarding various settings but I seldom hear personal feedback regarding which of these made a positive sonic improvement over the previous setup and what the subjective effect was.

 

So I have two questions... 

What specific configuration changes made a noticeable positive difference for you?

Have you found that version 2 sounded better than version 1 in your system?

 

Thanks!

 

 

[mourip]

57 minutes ago, jcn3 said:

 

Assign ip addresses to each device in AL - it's a menu option.

+1.

 

Static IP and unique host names. Select static IP addresses outside of the DHCP range.

[mourip]

Does AL auto-negotiate network speed or must it be set in a config file?

 

I am adding an EtherRegen to my system and its "B" side runs at 100Mbps which will feed my AL NUC.

 

Currently I have a straight bridged connection from my server at 1G so I am trying to anticipate issues.

 

Really looking forward to this addition!