Euphony OS w/Stylus player setup and issues thread

[edwardsean]

20210216
- tags that are not directly indexed by music DB are accumulated in "otherfields" tag - which is now used in search and in filters
- add menu items for switching to another Euphony and shutting down both machines only if other machine responds to network query 
- added more checks to registration dialog (to make clear when people confuse voucher code with registration code)
- clarified some messaging in Complete Installation dialog
- Roon core updated to 1.8
- improved internal/external drive mounting and detection
- reconnecting network interface after Play and disconnect now possible even for WiFi interface
- added IRQ handling in Expert Settings CPU isolation
- fixed UPnP for some UPnP endpoints (RoPieee and SOtM confirmed)
- added UPnP conversion option: bit-depth 
- fixed supported rates detection
- fixed "Song is not accessible on path.. " error 
- fixed Qobuz playlist content limit of 50 items
- fixed problems that appear when you fill the RAM with buffered songs from Queue

[edwardsean]

Yeah, good ears. I think the sound is slightly thinner myself. Whenever these updates occur on any platform, there is seldom any mention of changes to performance. However, I tend to notice subtle changes whether they were intended or not. I listen carefully because in this case I know I could also be imagining things. It's good to have some corroboration. 

 

The drift I've been noticing with Euphony updates has been away from fulness and toward clarity. I'm not sure I like the trade, but it's best to give it a week for your mind to adjust.  The great thing with Euphony, is that it's always easy to go back to your previous version if you go to "System" > "System Info" > "Revert to this release."

 

Also, if anyone else noticed there was a minor issue and so they already released another update today. 

[edwardsean]

22 minutes ago, dminches said:

I don't think sound quality can be judged for a least 24 hours.  Often these upgrades require a reboot which in itself can cause a change in sound quality until things reset to their prior state.

 

I also noticed this upgrade required me to re-enable RAMROOT.

 

 

That's really helpful to keep in mind. It's a bit of a balancing act then, as my memory of the previous build version will grow less reliable by the day. Still, we are talking about subtle shifts, if at all. 

 

Also, just to underscore the point: Ramroot gets disabled after every update. You have to reenable it and reboot. 

[edwardsean]

I've given some time now for my system to settle down after the reboot. It sounds the same as when I first updated to the new version. 

 

For me this new update 20210217 (20210216) definitely sounds different as we have been describing. There is more clarity and detail at the expense of some fullness and suppleness. Overall, I consider it a net gain in performance. 

 

I'm adjusting HQP to compensate.

[edwardsean]

I leave my system running, but I've also rebooted many times. I'm pretty sure the change in sound is due to the update. Euphony, like many audio companies, do not seem to flag all modifications in SQ in their change logs. 

 

How this shift affects you, or to what degree, will obviously vary heavily from system to system .

 

I would venture to say though that if your system already errors on the analytical side I would make sure I can revert to the version before 20210216.

[edwardsean]

5 hours ago, davide256 said:

?? No system in profile or signature... kind of a data point with no x-y coordinates or scale  😉

 

Yup. I'm real mystery wrapped in an Enigma. 

 

It's a system built around a DAVE+SJ power supply, if that provides some reference. I haven't really listed it all out because from there I've gone a little bit on my own way. Cheers. 

[edwardsean]

I do like what this new update brings, but I also find myself missing the previous version, which is now two builds back. 

 

The more I listen, there is a certain "tightness" to the sound that puts me off. Adjusting the core allocations resolves this for me, but it's also causing a bit of thermal issues. 

 

Does anyone know if the "revert to previous version" only works once or if it can go back further?

[edwardsean]

For those who went back to build ...108, I take it you updated directly to ...217 and so you could use the "revert to previous version" option? 

 

I wonder if I revert to ...216, I can go back one more to ...108. I'm tempted to try but I get a message that cautions me about using this feature. 

 

I also, as a rule, would like to keep going forward with updates rather than backward. I hope a newer build might realign the balance between clarity and fullness. 

[edwardsean]

I got a chance to do a bit of experimenting today, and for my system, I can't go the route of disabling ramroot.

 

My impressions fall in line with others here. it does sound more relaxed and spacious like ...108,  but it attains those qualities by smearing the image across the frequency spectrum and soundstage. The whole presentation is "pleasing" but more diffuse and incoherent. 

 

I also can't live with the more closed, etched tightness of ...117/116, but disabling ramroot is not a solution for me. I think you are just leaving a lot of free performance on the table disengaging ramroot. 

 

I may request to go back to 108, but for now, I gave gstp a little more core allocation and that seems to be close to the right balance of clarity and creaminess. 

 

Can you believe how much a difference is made by these tweaks to the OS? Goodness. 

[edwardsean]

I also have my core allocations set to: 

0 gstp 1-7

 

This leads me to think that moving up to 16 threads may be beneficial to SQ. So, I'm looking to move from a fanless i7 to a fanless i9. 

 

Has anyone made this jump and found it worthwhile? The difference in cost is quite substantial. 

[edwardsean]

7 minutes ago, ASRMichael said:

Hi, yes I move from i7 to i9! Big shift in dynamics! I have Sean Jacobs 10a version so I’m able to run at 5.0ghz! Cpu full open! Again bigger dynamics! 

Thank you that's helpful. Was it just dynamics or were their other gains, soundstage, imaging, detail, etc.?

Could you give a brief description of your fanless i9, pc board, case?

[edwardsean]

16 minutes ago, ASRMichael said:

Hi, I have pdf of my system in my profile.  Check there for further details. 
 

I can’t really recall exact improvements but I know was a big lift in SQ. I didn’t take any notes at the time. If I was to now would be a guesstimate. But if pushed more space/Airy & big dynamics. That’s with 10a SJ LPS. Previously used 5a SJ LPS with my i7. So SQ improvement for me is probably a combination of 10a LPS & i9. 
 

i9 9900k

Asus ROG Maximus X1 Formula Z390

Apacer RAM

HDPlex case

 

 

Hmm... that does make it hard to know what was the i9 what was the new power supply, as power plays such a large part esp. in dynamics.

[edwardsean]

 

1 hour ago, Speedy381 said:

How did you go back? Support ticket?

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

 

 

Setup a support ticket with Euphony and they will get you an image of euphony20201102v3. You then have to use an app like Rufus or Etcher to create a bootable image on a USB thumb drive. They can't bring you back to 108 as features have changed. 

 

I've held off myself and instead tweaked the core isolation. The latest update definitely is an uptick in performance so I want to keep it if possible and keep going forward with updates. However, I agree, I appreciate the new build technically, but I am not enjoying music as much. 

 

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. 

[edwardsean]

Okay, well, yeah, I went back to 20201102. Just FYI, it's pretty easy, but I did have a hiccup. Whenever I tried to install Euphony into my Optane SSD using "repair" it didn't work. I had to go with a full "install." This was fine because I lost a few playlists but I have no music on the SSD. 

 

So, how does the old build sound vs.217? You know how memory of sound is unreliable in audio? Well...

 

In this case, it is exactly as I remembered. I'm sorry, because I know a lot of effort must go into each update, but:

 

This is the sound of Euphony!

 

102 doesn't have the laser etched precision of 217.  So, if accuracy and hyper clarity is your thing, stick with the new build. However, to my ears, 102 doesn't seem like it's lacking detail or overly soft and diffuse. Disengaging Ramroot does have that negative effect. The rendering though, for better or worse, is "looser."

 

The whole feel is more relaxing, full, and open. 217 felt refreshing, but also tight and closed at times. I dislike simplistic conclusions, but, for what it's worth, my cores are running about 5 degrees cooler now across the board. I do wonder if 217 is pushing more and therefore squeezing out more precision but also giving that sense of strain.

 

To tell you the truth, I think if you could increase precision while retaining the smoother sound of older builds that would be optimum.  Right now, we have to choose, and the difference is real. For me, I'm staying with the older sound no question. There is a certain natural, analog, and pleasing presentation that I associate with Euphony. The sound is, what's the term I'm looking for? 

 

"Euphonic."

 

 

[edwardsean]

I've always been amazed at the responsiveness of Euphony to its users. Please don't think that they are ignoring the comments here and are just going their own way.

 

They are aware that some users prefer the older sound. I can tell you that they are actively working to bring the best sound going forward. 

 

[edwardsean]

I never settled on the issue of high power vs. low power processors. When I worked my way through the "Novel way..." mega-thread, it seemed like users moved from low power to higher power processors. I also made this move to good effect. 

 

My understanding is that this shift does result in an increase in noise, but that it can be mitigated by other strategies, while the  gains provided by higher power CPUs, such as dynamics and density, are worthwhile. 

 

I am very open to learning more if anyone cares to chime in, especially in regard to their experiences with Euphony. 

 

 

[edwardsean]

25 minutes ago, ASRMichael said:

FWIF I’ve went from

 

SOTM

NUC

i7 7700T

i9 9900k

i9 10900k

 

Each time a jump in SQ. Big & bold dynamics. I’ve tried every frequency possible, high & low. 
 

I currently have all 20 threads at 5.0ghz. More or less fully open. 
 

This was only possible when I purchased 10a LPS for CPU. 
 

IMHO The most important part is the the quality of the LPS. 
 

Occasionally I use my LPS on my NUC to compare against my server. This gives me the reference point compared to any new purchases.  

 

Given the choice between a NUC with a great power supply and an i9 with a lesser power supply what would you do?

 

I'm running a NUC7i7DNBE with Newton chasis, Apacer RAM, Optane, custom modified Farad Super 3 LPS into a FIBBR optic cable powered by a LPS1.2 into an Innuos Phoenix. 

 

I'm waiting on a new product that will take the power supply, and this kit, as far as it can go. My other option is to build a new server, but in order to power all the components I may need to settle for lesser power like an HDPlex. 

[edwardsean]

Well, I updated to 421 and, unfortunately, it looks like I have a minority report. I listened for several hours and went back to 102 to compare and stayed there. Why?

 

421 is missing the magic of 102....

 

I'm pausing to give ample time for heads to explode. I know, I know, if "musical" is an unhelpful term, then where does that leave words like "magical." So, let me 'splain.

 

I do like 421 better than 216/217. There is an increase in clarity and detail like 216/217, but it is smoother, without the etched brightness. Also, an increase in the definiteness of the imaging gives the render a sense of higher quality in general. 

 

However, as much as I prize precision, my goal is always a "creamy clarity." In my Dave-based system, 421 is still missing the fullness and fluidity of 102. 421 is smooth, but I still find the sound somewhat tight and small. On balance, 102 is missing 421's focus and is too diffuse, but there is simply this gorgeous analog texture and freedom of flow. It also renders with larger scale and dynamics to my ears. 

 

I know audio is often a compromise of these elements, but my favorite pieces, hardware or software, accomplish the impossibility of combining both. For me "creamy clarity" is where audio "magic" occurs. In my system, at least to my mind, 102 has more of it over 421. 

 

I very much dislike giving up the performance of 421 both sonically and in functionality.  I will try it again for a longer period of time, and see if my mind can settle into it. From experience I don't think letting it settle in my system will alter this impression. 

 

For now, I'm so glad to be able to retain 102.

 

 

 

 

 

[edwardsean]

Hey , before you go and do a fresh install with the image file, check Settings > System > System Info. 

 

You already have in image of your previous release. See what version you have. If It is prior to 216/217 you should just hit "revert" and see what you think. 216/217 is when the major sonic change occurred. The builds prior all have the "classic" Euphony sound. 102 is just one version of that. 

 

[edwardsean]

I agree with Topk that preference over builds is going to be somewhat dependent on individual systems, as well as tastes.

 

It would be fantastic if Željko could give us end-user access to some parameters to tune Euphony in terms of clarity/precision vs. romantic/fullness.

 

We can already do that a bit in terms of core isolation, but it doesn't seem to accomplish the kind of differences we're describing between builds. 

 

Anyway that would be a dream!

[edwardsean]

I went back again to 421 to give it another spin. I still found the same differences, and realized just how dissimilar 421 is from 102. 

 

421 has a wonderful clarity over 102, but the sound is tight and congeals to the middle, with a smaller low end. 102 flows out and spreads the image over a larger canvas. It actually creates more space between elements and allows them more air and separation. 

 

Again, the cost for 102's sense of space is a more diffuse rendering over 421's definiteness. 102 can sound almost mushy by comparison, but 421 is so hard and focused it feels strained.

 

I really wish I didn't have to choose, but I find 102 considerably more easeful and, ahem, euphonic. It makes me sad, but I'm happier with 102. Along with others, I revolt against going backwards, but that is how much I prefer the pre 216/216 builds.  

[edwardsean]

Darn, 421 performs so well in terms of precision and detail. I really wish I could have a mix of 421 and 102. As it is, no matter how hard I try, I can't settle on 421 in my system. 

 

This is a plea for Željko, going forward, if we could move the balance back some toward 102, or if we could have some more tuning options. 

[edwardsean]

5 hours ago, NanoSword said:

I read @ASRMichael comment's explain IRQ after I start play with IRQ I feel the image is improving. 

 

Which build are you on?

[edwardsean]

4 hours ago, NanoSword said:

I am using AMD 3950x still I don't use any LPS for my server I have Taiko-ATX and I am waiting ULPS from taiko .

 

I'm sorry, I meant which build as in 421, 102, 108, etc.?

[edwardsean]

Okay, okay, okay, I've converted to 421.

 

I kept playing with 421 and what finally did it was that I disabled Ramroot. That alleviated the tightness I was experiencing in 421's presentation. 421 has this incredible precision and definiteness where 102 can image overly soft and diffuse. However, with Ramroot engaged, the sound feels like the screws are overtightened and it feels stiff.  I don't like giving up Ramroot, but once I unloaded it, a natural sense of flow returned. 

 

I still long for more of 102's fullness, larger low end and staging. Also, I am uncomfortable losing Ramroot from a technical standpoint. I had to remind myself that the only that counts is the end result sound. Well, you can't have everything. This is still quite a good net win, and I'm glad to be going forward with Euphony!