Jump to content
IGNORED

Euphony OS w/Stylus player setup and issues thread


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, ASRMichael said:

Reconnect feature??

My mistake. In my excitement I read down to the notes for 421 and it said, "reconnect network during play & disconnect by pressing power button." I thought that meant that Z added a feature by which you could press Euphony's green power button to reconnect after hitting play & disconnect. 

 

Wishful thinking. 

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

I have updated from 20210614 to 20210716, and the other partition has 20201102.  Based on my quick comparison, this latest feature update (took < 1 min) improves SQ, back to 1102 sound.  I will do more critical listening and will report back.  I hope others can share their listening impression too.

 


Exciting news if the latest 0716 sounds like the 1102 version!  Will test now and confirm this soon…

 

update - 0716 update is not available to me while on 1102. Only the 0421 version. Which might mean that one has to move to 0421 first then onto 0716 in steps. 
 

Or perhaps just wait a day or two for the update to appear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, flkin said:

 

update - 0716 update is not available to me while on 1102. Only the 0421 version. Which might mean that one has to move to 0421 first then onto 0716 in steps. 
 

 

if you run 0421, you may be prompted with 0614 update before this, and now 0716.  it's worthwhile trying 0716.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried "Play and disconnect".  I do not use audiophile-grade network switch.  My consumer-grade network switch uses 12V dual regulated (2 x LM1084) DIY linear PSU.  I only hear slight improvement in SQ with "Play and disconnect".

 

I hear a lot more SQ improvement when replacing the network switch stock SMPS to LPSU.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It stands to reason that no physical connection is better than only a disabled network adapter. So for maximum effect you should also try disconnecting the cable after starting "Play and disconnect" (not sure how Euphony handles disconnecting the cable otherwise - if the network is in an active state...).

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, c-w said:

It stands to reason that no physical connection is better than only a disabled network adapter. So for maximum effect you should also try disconnecting the cable after starting "Play and disconnect" (not sure how Euphony handles disconnecting the cable otherwise - if the network is in an active state...).

My understanding is Euphony network is completely shutdown. I think pulling the cable out causes the network card to keep checking if cable is there. Which results in network activity. 

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

My understanding is Euphony network is completely shutdown. I think pulling the cable out causes the network card to keep checking if cable is there. Which results in network activity. 

 

I'll admit that I never looked at any network driver or NIC firmware implementation but I found all your premises suspect:
1) Disabling the network stack surely doesn't 'shutdown' the card (whatever "shutdown" should mean...)
2) If the network were completely shutdown why would it be constantly checking anything?
3) Why would the card check if the cable is there - what is there to check? I would rather assume that connecting the cable triggers the activity in the card's firmware.
4) Even if the NIC would constantly check if the cable is there, why would this create "network activity"? This would be entirely inside the card and since I cannot assume that disabling network interface in kernel somehow powers-down the card this would hardly influence anything since some kind of idle loop must be going on in the card firmware at all times (enabled/disabled, cable connected or not...)

 

I may be completely wrong (i.e., while disabled, NIC is in low power mode and removing the cable indeed wakes it up increasing the noise from card circuits...), but all this is moot anyway... Somebody ought to really check it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, c-w said:

 

I'll admit that I never looked at any network driver or NIC firmware implementation but I found all your premises suspect:
1) Disabling the network stack surely doesn't 'shutdown' the card (whatever "shutdown" should mean...)
2) If the network were completely shutdown why would it be constantly checking anything?
3) Why would the card check if the cable is there - what is there to check? I would rather assume that connecting the cable triggers the activity in the card's firmware.
4) Even if the NIC would constantly check if the cable is there, why would this create "network activity"? This would be entirely inside the card and since I cannot assume that disabling network interface in kernel somehow powers-down the card this would hardly influence anything since some kind of idle loop must be going on in the card firmware at all times (enabled/disabled, cable connected or not...)

 

I may be completely wrong (i.e., while disabled, NIC is in low power mode and removing the cable indeed wakes it up increasing the noise from card circuits...), but all this is moot anyway... Somebody ought to really check it. 

Sounds like you have all the answers. Clearly you know much more than me. Good points you make. 👍

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, c-w said:

 

I'll admit that I never looked at any network driver or NIC firmware implementation but I found all your premises suspect:
1) Disabling the network stack surely doesn't 'shutdown' the card (whatever "shutdown" should mean...)
2) If the network were completely shutdown why would it be constantly checking anything?
3) Why would the card check if the cable is there - what is there to check? I would rather assume that connecting the cable triggers the activity in the card's firmware.
4) Even if the NIC would constantly check if the cable is there, why would this create "network activity"? This would be entirely inside the card and since I cannot assume that disabling network interface in kernel somehow powers-down the card this would hardly influence anything since some kind of idle loop must be going on in the card firmware at all times (enabled/disabled, cable connected or not...)

 

I may be completely wrong (i.e., while disabled, NIC is in low power mode and removing the cable indeed wakes it up increasing the noise from card circuits...), but all this is moot anyway... Somebody ought to really check it. 

I disabled the internal NIC of my NUC and now using USB to Ethernet adapter. Also disabled the Sata and pci controllers for Optane and now using a USB to NVME adapter. 

 

Could this be one of the reasons why I'm liking Euphony now? BTW I disabled hyperthreading too. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone else made comparisons on the latest version of 0102? I wouldn't want to go to the latest version and then have to do the procedure to rejoice the 0102, a vispt that it is not really immediate, thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone.

Do you have experience with Nuc7i7dnke or "dnhe". Which is the maximum capacity supported for M.2 nvme ssd? Is it possible to install a 2TB Samsung Evo?

Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, zeblo69 said:

Hi everyone.

Do you have experience with Nuc7i7dnke or "dnhe". Which is the maximum capacity supported for M.2 nvme ssd? Is it possible to install a 2TB Samsung Evo?

Thanks in advance.

Yes it supports up to 2TB.

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

Anyone comment on SQ of the latest version 0716? 🤗

I happen to enjoy 0716 very much. I've rolled back twice before and this is definitely not one of those times 😃. Give it a try and report back your impressions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Exocer said:

I happen to enjoy 0716 very much. I've rolled back twice before and this is definitely not one of those times 😃. Give it a try and report back your impressions.

Do you mean compared to version 102? I haven't tried it yet because eventually going back to version 102 is not so immediate, so I'm probing the ground a bit but at this point I know I'll do it 😍

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

Do you mean compared to version 102? I haven't tried it yet because eventually going back to version 102 is not so immediate, so I'm probing the ground a bit but at this point I know I'll do it 😍

Good question. I am comparing to version 20210614. Unfortunately I don't remember what v102 sounds like at this point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Anwar said:

 

Since the difference in SQ is system dependent, I suggest you download 20210421 and burn the ISO to thumb drive, boot from thumb drive, update to 0716, and then listen yourself.  To facilitate comparison, copy a few favorite music files to the thumb drive music folder after the installation was completed.

Thanks for the advice. I want to clarify that, after a more careful listening in my system, I always preferred the 0102 version and not the 0416 like many of us, that's why I was wondering if someone who prefers the 0102 had made comparisons with the 0716 to understand, in comparison , the levels of SQ.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really fascinating how you recap all the different Euphony versions. When you mention regarding 1102 “Bass slightly loose, details a little less than optimal”, it makes me wonder what/if other Euphony versions improve on this specific feature? 

I assume for you that would be the ultimate Euphony version (and it’s ok even if that’s only for July 2021 ;-).)


In other words, what version did you like more with a tighter base, and what version has details optimal?  Or did you not hear that yet with previous versions? 


That would be great feedback (for Z). I am aware it is system dependent but I would love to hear that specific version.


Cheers flkin and may the music be with you!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes thanks so much for your assessment. Did you try changing core isolation strategy with each of the versions? Or is that not enough to overcome the sound of the Euphony version?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, di-fi said:

Really fascinating how you recap all the different Euphony versions. When you mention regarding 1102 “Bass slightly loose, details a little less than optimal”, it makes me wonder what/if other Euphony versions improve on this specific feature? 

I assume for you that would be the ultimate Euphony version (and it’s ok even if that’s only for July 2021 ;-).)


In other words, what version did you like more with a tighter base, and what version has details optimal?  Or did you not hear that yet with previous versions? 


That would be great feedback (for Z). I am aware it is system dependent but I would love to hear that specific version.


Cheers flkin and may the music be with you!

 

Thanks, @di-fi it's all about the music in the end 😄

 

I found that from 0217 (ie February) onwards, focus and bass tightness was more than the earlier versions - but when does it end? I find that with 1102, when the image of say a singer is right in front of you and palpable, does one need more focus? The bass in a live jazz session is naturally unfocused, you can't hear the edges of the instrument like you can with a brass instrument. So do we need tighter bass? That's why I think any valuable improvement would be more towards the texture and micro details. And perhaps a touch tighter bass. Not to say that 1102 is defective in anyway, I find it really good already. Say in Sara Bareilles' "Sittin' on the Dock of the Bay" in her Live at the Variety Playhouse album, the micro details of the audience in the background is almost as loud as her singing and 1102 is resolving enough paint the illusion of the soundstage so well you're almost there at the performance. But at the same time, during the loudest part of the song, her voice doesn't come across as overly hard or stinging. The high tone has just the right amount of energy, bodyweight and reverb. I don't get this balance with Euphony versions later than 1102. 

 

Audio memory is a fickle thing but from memory alone the version after 1102, the 0102 (which is unavailable to me) had the best balance. Please keep in mind that this is only true in my system. Željko knows my opinions, I haven't been silent about this. He was very concerned after the negative comments of 0217 from people here.

 

5 hours ago, k27R said:

Yes thanks so much for your assessment. Did you try changing core isolation strategy with each of the versions? Or is that not enough to overcome the sound of the Euphony version?

 

Yup, all my comparisons were after trying core isolations and ramroot. Tried to optimise each to the best I could before deciding which I like best. The 1102 I am using today is with ramroot but without core isolations. Sometimes with HQP but mostly not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not using Ramroot in my system with the latest version... (one box solution, NUC10i7 in HDPlex fanless case powered with Keces LPS, Optane M.2 8GB SSD and Timetec Hynix DDR4 2666 16GB RAM).

Ramroot in my case makes the overall sound somewhat congested... Seems to have more air without Ramroot.

I tried core isolation too in various ways... could not hear much difference and in the end the system became sluggish. Resetting to auto with standard settings brought back the best performance and sound. 

Can anyone advise how to get the 0102 image? Would mind comparing and trying...

The biggest sound improvement was adding the 19V Keces LPS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...