Jump to content

Euphony OS w/Stylus player setup and issues thread


bobfa

Recommended Posts

I agree with the sound quality k27R, it has gone to pieces for me. It has lost the natural feel and there is less space and musicality. The core temperatures and stress have gone right up, I have had to allocate more cores to Stylus to keep them out of the red continually as this was causing a harshness to the sound. Now to figure out if it will let me go back two releases, or do I have start again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, dminches said:

 

If you are finding a very big difference in CPU usage then something is not right with your system.  How long did you allow the system to run on the new version before concluding there was an issue?

 

I have tried a few reboots over the past couple of days. It starts well then begins to build cpu usage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update to my issues. 

Support were superb in their speed of response and action. It seems that the e_cache directory had been deleted, either in the update or by myself somehow. If it was me, it would have been using file manager, but unsure how. 

That was causing a loop as the system hunted for it. 

Sound testing later, but I'm confident now the cpu is unstressed that all will be well again. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chopin75 said:

IT also depends on your DAC, I have   a cheap $250 DAC. and I can tell a clear difference if load all buffered tracks and then pulled out the Ethernet cable with immediate improvement. But the other $3000 DAC, well, not sure if I can hear much difference, The cheap DAC has no or poor reclocking but obviously the $3000 has a dedicated clock just for reclock at the USB input. 

Maybe the DAC has something to do with it, but I feel it's more likely to be the server. My system is a NUC 10 i7, with Euphony on an Optane M2 drive, feeding a linear ps'd Matrix by USB into i2s on PSAudio Directstream DAC. The music is on a USB connected external hard drive. 

The difference is very obvious; the Matrix in the chain was a good change, this is again something I don't want to miss. Despite the inability to skip, add or stop play, so far it is worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reasonably happy with the network switch off as it is, just remember not to have too long a playlist if you may want to change style. 

It would be slightly more convenient to have the button a bit nearer the control interface.

Back to vinyl type listening to an album, it's not all bad. Especially as I don't have to get up to change the record over. I have a very nice vinyl replay front end, but I must be lazy as 15 to 20 minutes is not enough time to relax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, biosailor said:

Finally managed to get Euphony/Roon working fully! Sounds MUCH better than running Roon alone.

For the moment, I am running Euphony on an old MacBook Air with a 6 TB HDD holding my library and straight USB-connected to my Devialet.

I guess at one point I should set up a NUC or similar for hosting Euphony.

Thanks for all the good input I got here!

 

 

6B54F6B6-CB36-4054-9E9E-6D95FBFC987A.jpeg

That's the next worthwhile upgrade. I am running Euphony on an Optane in an i7 NUC with linear PS and it is so much better than my old PC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, davide256 said:

I didn't renew Roon this year, it didn't match the clarity and midrange timbre integrity of Stylus

under A/B comparison 

Nailed it,  good description and exactly how I feel 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could use a separate USB to digital out, that may isolate any nasties in the USB. I run my USB from NUC into a Matrix Spdif2 and out to i2s with good results over just USB. Especially when the Matrix is powered by a linear PS. More boxes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ASRMichael said:

In have no issue whatsoever with Stylus library. Yes of course you have to spend a bit of time when you first import your music! Roon does a better job on first import but still doesn’t import everything perfectly.
 

Once you’ve dedicated some time to get your library organised.....here comes something that Roon cannot compete with..Sound Quality! & not by small margin either! 
 

Yes Euphony has the odd bug like messages appearing, doesn’t bother me to be honest! Focus has to be maintaining / improving sound quality. I’m always nervous when there’s more features are added, more features more services...maybe less sound quality. 
 

Euphony v Roon is a trade-off! I’ll always go with Euphony being Roon trade-off is SQ!  
 

Anyway that’s my pennies worth! 
 

This is the second time,  at least, that I have agreed whole heartedly with you. My current 3 month trial with Roon is coming to an end and I just have not been using it the last 6 weeks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • I have just had an odd experience; I have been using my NUC i7 with good RAM, Optane card running Euphony, powered by a Farad 3 PS. So a pretty well sorted front end, if not full exotic then decently middle range. My source up to now has been my library on external hard drive, self powered USB. I found an appreciable difference with network isolation and ran a Cisco switch for a while, until firewall issues caused me to go back to an old Netgear. Tidal is not at the quality of my own library, and Roon piped from an Imac on the system is also unrewarding in a different way, using the same external HD as library. I cannot implement Roon fully on Euphony as the Optane card is not big enough and the library filled it, necessitating a full new install. 
  • So, here's the issue; I was about to purchase a Synology NAS for use primarily as a music library, but also for other household/security things that I can actually do without but if I have one I will implement. At present I have an HP running WHS that has a backup library (was primary), so I set the music source as that in Euphony for proof of concept re sound quality of served FLAC files. The resulting sound is thin and uninvolving, despite buffering and isolating the network. I had actually forgotten I had switched source and was reading in the earlier part of the evening, writing off the lack of emotion in the music to one of those nights, then I turned my attention fully to the music and the volume went up but did not deliver. The penny dropped then as to the change of library.
  • Can it be that internal noise in the HP server is somehow contaminating the files? The switch is robbing the bass? Re the latter, Tidal still has plenty of presence, if not ultimate fidelity etc. so maybe not that. Unless a more powerful NAS has less internal noise (possible), then those times I have been unimpressed with shop system centrally served could be just down to source? I realise companies such as Antipodes advise against served files and use internally mounted drives, but that requires very clever power supplies to isolate from the processor etc.
  • How are your files served? Has anyone noted a dramatic difference between sources? At present I am sticking to a USB external drive, unless anyone has a better solution for an NUC implementation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, c-w said:

@Speedy381

Do you buffer the whole queue before playback? That should be better than using just 100% buffer option.
Have you tried the new expert option 'Play & disconnect' where your network is disconnected for the total duration of the queue playback time?

Yes, all buffered and play and disconnect used. The phenomenon remains throughout the playback so it's doubtful there is a state of disarray while it sorts itself out. The logical part of me would like to believe there is no difference, just like I would like to think that a switch can have no influence on the sound. I have, however heard a Melco switch replace a Netgear and the subsequent improvement, so am prepared to believe that I heard the difference I did for the reason the data was bounced about in a noisy box before getting to the NUC. But all good points, thanks for reading through and offering up ideas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, davide256 said:

I've used a Buffalo NAS and a PC as music file server... they sucked, pretty lifeless. And i really wanted local storage in Euphony to be best... but the DS214Play NAS

I have continues to be far more convincing for mid range tone color purity and reduction of digital artifacts. My last try to supplant the NAS, a local M.2 NVME drive

didn't even last 24 hours in the Euphony server before I gave up and went back to NAS.

 

That is heartening that you have had the same results. I don't feel quite so crazy now. Although I have to wonder whether the whole Synology range is the same as the 214 for sound. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have found a change in sound also. More detail and more digital sounding with less warmth. I am not sure I like what has happened

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It did not sound digital on the last firmware, only this one. The NUC i7 is powered by a Farad3, a Matrix SPIDF2 powered by an MCRU unit. I'm not going any further down that route

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Anwar said:

My initial impression about Version 20210217 is that it sounds better without RAM root.  The sound of 20210217 without RAM root is almost similar to 20210108 with RAM root.  Version 20210217 with RAM root sounds more digital and lacks warmth.

 

That's my next experiment, thanks. I feel it was a big jump, with a lack of mid bass and emotion. Fingers crossed 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, biosailor said:

And very important, with the present update, I am able to distinguish between good recordings and bad ones. In the previous version, everything was glossed over with a ‚euphonic‘ wand and everything sounded good. Now I pick again those details that let me decide if the recording is good or bad. For me, a good development.

 

I agree re bad recordings. However if the only way I can access the music (70/80s rock?) is poor recordings, then I would still like to enjoy. Sometimes poorer fidelity wins. In my teenage years with a Rotel amp, small Wharfdales and a mediocre record deck even Rainbow sounded good. Starstruck was virtually unlistenable last night

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the same story with my DAC, a PSaudio Directstream. It is very well supported by the developer and factory and free firmware appears every few months. It is generally an improvement, but there are usually dissenters who prefer earlier releases. Or those who reconfigure their system to play to the new strengths of the DAC. The developer is an engineer who is seeking ways of streamlining the processes or optimising the functionality. The change in sound is not necessarily desired, expected or understood, but it's there every time. 

I don't feel this change however is one I wish to pander to and I don't feel I can reconfigure my system to work with it. Unless I start to play with dsp, like my phono stage does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I've disabled Ramroot and the sound has indeed shifted again. It's less etched and more musical, the bass is a little flabbier and less formed. However the bass with Ramroot was a little one note at times and everything above that lifted, giving a shrunken vertical soundstage but not horizontal. That all sounds very hifi critic evaluative and I don't intend to sound overly flowery but I really was surprised by the degradation.

That said, I get the feeling that the musicality has come back and the continuous, cohesive sound at the expense of some detail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if it would be possible to make 108 available as an optional 'upgrade' and then those of us who do not have it as a fallback can use it without having to pester support individually?

I am torn between the ramroot sparkle, detail, fatigue vs musical smeared sound. I'm not really sure what cpu isolation to play with to get to a less digital sound, or what cores to sacrifice to gst. Any pointers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, maxst67 said:

I went back to the version .... 102 and the sound returned pleasant, full, musical and above all real and natural. With the latest versions, I honestly lost a lot of the listening pleasure that led me to buy the license, too digital and aseptic for my system. Obviously they are tastes

How did you go back? Support ticket?

I seem to have lost perspective on previous releases now, but still find the latest too sterile. 

 

I have to say I have not got on with Roon however I have applied it. It was best through Euphony, but still lagging a way behind Stylus in terms of musicality, detail and involvement. My latest trial ends tomorrow and I will not miss it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, edwardsean said:

 

And... I think, I'm not sure, but I do think that all this is to actually enjoy music. I don't know maybe that's just crazy talk. 

Agreed., madness lies this way. I thought I was over that, but it never goes. 

A new update has just landed on my NUC, I see. Too late tonight, but looking forward to that one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, maxst67 said:

Sorry, do you know if Zeljko is working on trying to bring the sound of Stylus similar to old versions?

I'm hoping so; I don't want to pester him with a request for an earlier version but I am not enjoying this one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have reverted to an earlier release. And relax.... wow, that's better. If my first exposure to Euphony had been the latest release I'm pretty certain I would not have carried on. The sound of the latest to me is like various very expensive servers I tried and could not get on with. Just no music. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TheAttorney said:

Maybe it's because I run the CPU at a low speed 1.2Ghz that the speed of the RAM is not so important - there must be other quality factors that do matter.

I saw in earlier posts that you had been running between 1 and 1.5. Was this in bios as well? Just altering in expert settings does not change the CPU reported frequency for me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...