Euphony OS w/Stylus player setup and issues thread

[ASRMichael]

3 hours ago, jacky5555 said:

Hi, anyone who tried 2 box solution for stylus server + endpoint, and how it compare to 1 box, in term of SQ?

My current server is a fanless NUC8i7 which is nearly identical to the Summus server, and I'm thinking of another NUC8i3 for the endpoint, if the sound improvement's worth it. 

I think your money would be better spent on a linear power supply like a Sean Jacobs DC3 or Paul Hynes SR4 feeding just one NUC. We’ll if you don’t have already? 

[ASRMichael]

3 hours ago, jacky5555 said:

@ASRMichael, my NUC has Uptone JS2 LPS, it maybe not on par with PH SR4.

It can be upgrated with apacer ram and Intel Optane H10 SSD which is my plan but I have not pulled the trigger yet.

 

Just floating ideas because I always think with a helicopter view of my system. E.g. I have 1k to spend, what would give the best SQ improvement for all my system. Last year I spent 1k on dedicated mains supply for my whole system. The sound quality improvement is 10-20 times more than say 1-2 box systems, cables etc? That's another option. Enjoy the journey!!

[ASRMichael]

23 minutes ago, NanoSword said:

 Thinking again with good better easy solution for disconnect network and keep songs in buffer clean as possible.

 

But this needs the Željko diamond touch to make it very easy .

 

He can add extra feature after we add all local album in queue .

- disable network and then euphony will auto add all music in buffer in 2 seconds.

- network will enable auto after all file in buffer remaining clean and safe from any  network noise  .

 

now we should enjoy the  natural sound even after network is enable .

??? That’s ready a feature. Add & buffer albums. Go to expert menu & press play. The network shuts of for the duration of your albums selected. Excluding Tidal etc

[ASRMichael]

52 minutes ago, NanoSword said:

a- with this feature the problem is You have to buffer the queue before disconnecting network . (( this will add network activity  in buffer)) .

b- but I think is better to disconnecting  network first then  buffer .

with option (b) you are buffering  without network activity.

 

I test this with same song two copy I find (b) less harsh more natural more clear . can you make same test from your side .

Ahh ok makes sense. David256 posted the solution. Cache>Disconnect>Buffer

[ASRMichael]

3 minutes ago, NanoSword said:

 

 

I am enabling cache in my server I use my internal optane drive.

 

But I am trying to explain that we need enhance the method of disabling network with euphony .

I think for better sq we need to disable network first .

second buffering the queue .

this should apply in sequence .

 

Has anyone asked Zeijko to do it this way? If not I’ll pop him an email. 

[ASRMichael]

23 hours ago, al2813 said:

A different question. Euphony is not allowing me to upload a 1,6 Gb file into my music library (located in the internal SSD used as the Euphony drive). Currently I use the file manager to upload files. error message is: "400: ENOSPC: no space left on device, write"

 

2 questions: 

 

- How do I solve this limitation?

- Can I map a network drive on my Mac? 

 

You should be able to map the drive. Just make sure in Euphony settings you tick the box share library over network. Then map using IP/Folder

[ASRMichael]

6 hours ago, davide256 said:

albums per row -Just learned something thats helping me, adding since I don't find in the thread. Using a widescreen with Windows browser I was getting

a 3x2 album cover display from Euphony GUI which wasn't useful  for album browsing.  if you  click repeatedly at the bottom of the screen just below

the last album row you can change albums per row, I was able to bump up to 7

Yeh I discovered that after s year of using also! Just by clicking mouse in wrong place! 
 

 

[ASRMichael]

Hi

 

Does anyone have this image? If so can I have a copy? Euphony could only offer the latest or 20201102. Looking for 20210108

 

I don’t want the latest but do want the feature to turn off network 

20210108

[ASRMichael]

3 minutes ago, Exocer said:

I had this image but then had to re-image my laptop so all I can do now is rollback to this version. Would have to mail you a copy of the rolled back OS on a flash drive. 😁

 

Should I rollback??

I really appreciate the offer I do, but loads of hassle for you. Everything sounds fine the now just network disable feature I need. I’m sure Zeijko is working on what caused the SQ issue in new release anytime soon! Well I hope otherwise we’re stuck forever!! Fingers crossed 

 

Cheers

[ASRMichael]

1 hour ago, dc-audiogeek said:

 

Earlier this week, I upgraded my headphone system Summus server "back" to version 20212017v3 of Euphony Stylus. I got tired of seeing the pop-ups (after every reboot) notifying me that there was a newer version available. I've made some power-related tweaks to my headphone system since my 3/11 post that have smoothed the overall sound a bit, so I haven't noticed the "digital" quality of Stylus 20212017v3 returning to my system.

 

My living room/home theater Euphony PTS server is still on version 20210108. I'm not going to mess with that one until the next Stylus version update.

Was it 216 or 217 that caused the issue with SQ? I run my NUC with 217 on my 2nd license. I use my NUC like a NAS. Hence the photo below. 
 

 

[ASRMichael]

Ref core isolation - Is there a maximum amount of cores/threads gstp use? 
 

My core isolation is 0-3 stylus 4-7 gstp 8-19

 

 

[ASRMichael]

1 hour ago, BCRich said:

How would this work on a 16 Core System? Also for some reason gstp does not show up in my config, it had in the past. Could a Bios setting affect it?

 

You’re using HQPlayer. gstp is part of Stylus. also you’re not using all your cores. 4-7 are not active. 

[ASRMichael]

One point to note. With some motherboards like my Asus Z490 XII Extreme. All cores are running at 5.1 with turbo on with the exception of last two threads that run on 5.3. So I tend you use the fastest (5.3) for gstp. 

[ASRMichael]

On 4/9/2021 at 8:24 AM, flkin said:

After testing each process cpu usage when isolated separately, seems there is significant cpu usage outside the listed processes. So I figure that isolating the listed processes from the hidden processes might be good.

 

Found that all systemd processes sound a touch better when isolated so I group them and isolate and the rest into one core too. Then the other computer process into core 0.

 

Given this, my 8-core CPU (non-hyperthreading) isolations are:

 

0 systemd 1 nfm 2 dhcpcd 2 dbus-daemon 2 haveged 2 lvmetad 2 avahi-daemon 2 gstp 3-5 stylus 6-7

Are you saying they’re process there that are not shown?

[ASRMichael]

6 hours ago, c-w said:

Several new articles about Expert Settings appeared in Euphony Knowledge-base: https://euphony-audio.com/hesk/knowledgebase.php?category=8

There is a new thing for cpu isolation: irq isolation - maybe worth checking out..

Does this look right? 
 

 

[ASRMichael]

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.  

[ASRMichael]

1 hour ago, edwardsean said:

 

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. 

That was my point. Someone saying they yield better SQ from low power device is not how I would explain it. 
 

For example: and from experience, IMHO

 

- A NUC + Good LPS will sound fantastic

 

- High powered server (without a good LPS) will not sound as good as a NUC

 

- High powered server with good linear power supply will sound better than a NUC with good LPS. 
 

The take away I’ve experienced and many others is the more powerful CPU the better the LPS you need. I’m not saying you need a Sean Jacobs DC4. I have the DC3 which is lot cheaper. They’re also other options I’m sure. 
 

Then add what Ethernet card? USB card? Or Phoenix.
 

 

Not exact comparison but My NUC has OXCO clocks. I powered the NUC i7 with DC3, the clocks are also powered by a separate DC3 rail also. NUC running Euphony Stylus. If I recall I either connected my PF Ultra USB card to the NUC with M.2 adapter or was my JCAT card. Trying to make the comparison as close as possible. It sounded great, don’t get me wrong, but didn’t have the big bold fast dynamics my server has. Others of course could think otherwise. 
 

So please don’t think I’m saying NUCs don’t sound good, they do. 
 

To summarise 

 

Don’t go to high power server unless you are willing to spend a lot on LPS for each rail. If your budget doesn’t allow that, yes of course buy a low powered device but still power it with a good LPS. 
 

I’m not very good at explaining things, so hopefully users understand what I’m trying to say. 
 

last point to ensure this is relevant to Euphony. High power devices tend to come with more cores/threads which is a good thing for Core isolation with Euphony

[ASRMichael]

1 hour ago, al2813 said:

I am happy I started this little discussion  resulting in these different opinions . My hunch (not scientific I admit) is that the big power system yields results if you also invest in other components most notably LPS. So if you spend 7-10k then you’re probably able to get further with a high power system. If you (like me) spend 2-3k, then potentially the low power variant can yield an interesting result. I suspect also that the other system components, the music people listen to, and their taste of « what is good » in SQ influence the end result. 

I agree, however you don’t need to spend 7-10k. 
 

My LPS for ATX & CPU was around £2.5k and MB + CPU £1k..plus case+cables £0.5k

 

£4k total. You can add extra rails to power other things like Eth card or USB card for £250-£300per rail if i recall. 
 

Yes you can go higher but you can go lower also. Paul Hynes, Farad etc..

[ASRMichael]

2 hours ago, Tokyokyoto said:

Where does using a separate endpoint in bridge mode come in?

I use one box setup. 
 

I started with 2 box, home pc sending to NUC end point. But when I bought my LPS and powered my NUC. I got better results just using the NUC. I’ve stayed with one box setup since then.

 

I’ve even tested my server & my NUC as two box setup. All rails running from DC3 LPS. But lost the dynamics I get from my high power server. I also think using Euphony Stylus by itself rather than sending to Stylus will sound better. I recall pages in this thread what the differences are in functionality. 

[ASRMichael]

14 hours ago, bos3812 said:

Hi al2813,

 

maybe you are surprised but I worked the other way around. I went from a high powered motherboard to a low power motherboard and I can tell you that the low powered motherboard sounds a lot bettter. I first installed a Euphony trial on an old very low powered motherboard aka the Intel DN2800MT. After buying a license for Euphony I builded a new streamer and chose the Asus WS C246 Pro motherboard, a Xeon E-2224 processor, Apacer ECC memory and Intel optane 32 GB SSD. I also bought the JCat XE USB card, this all fed with the same PSU as yours, the HDPlex 300W. I came from a Sotm SMS-200 Ultra Neo and my new streamer was a lot better then the Sotm. After a while I got the feeling that my Intel DN2800MT had some properties I missed with the Asus and tried the DN2800MT again. And yes, it didn't have the resolution and detail of the Asus/Xeon, but I liked it a lot. It was more musical and it was fun to use.

 

I then decided to build a new streamer but as simple as possible, just to experiment. This time I chose a Gigabyte MB GA-IMB1900TN with integrated Celeron 1900 cpu, passive cooled and no DC-ATX needed. The JCat moved to this new streamer and I couldn't believe my ears when I played music with the Celeron based motherboard. It was a lot better then my much more expensive streamer. More resolution, more detail, a better soundstage, more palpable.

 

If you ask me how this is possible I only can guess and think it has to do with the much lower power it needs. Less power, less noise?? If you take a look at the models of Innuos and Antipodes then you see they also use low powered motherboards and I think not for economic reasons.

 

This is my experience and I am sure a lot of our forum members will not agree with me. I tried both, high and low powered motherboards and the last one won and not in a subtle way.

 

 

Hi, interesting view. How did you power your Xeon server? 

[ASRMichael]

9 minutes ago, al2813 said:

 

Maybe the 7-10k was a bit on the high side, although I was in EUR so your £4k is already €5k :-). Then, if you count the extra card (I think you'll need a high end JCAT or equivalent to match the rest, extra work on the networking side (card, cabling, switch). I suspect that the full package gets very close to my €7k. My server is €2-2.5k (case, motherboard + CPU + SSDs, HDPlex 300W, JCAT FEMTO) and for now I settled for a non tweaked Cisco 2900 switch which already delivered a little improvement.  

 

However, I still suspect that my second part (about the other components in the system/room acoustics etc.) holds. I strongly suspect that in order to really see the difference in SQ in a higher end source, you need a high-end setup around it in a proper room. I have come up quite a bit since I started this hobby in a more serious way last year, but probably am still very far from what is required, but maybe I'm wrong. 

 

I would recommend treating your room before upgrading a source! Room is 50-60% of SQ! I learned this the hard way! 

[ASRMichael]

55 minutes ago, al2813 said:

 Yes I am starting to understand this. A more modest setup in my bedroom sounds very close my main setup in my new listening room just because room acoustics is probably better there. If you can send a few tips my way that would be great! 

Sure send me a PM.

[ASRMichael]

I’ve finally got to grips with how IRQ Affinity work in Expert core isolation. 
 

With no CPU isolation IRQ handler is spread over every core. So when I hit apply with core isolation. (Here’s mine for example)

 

0-3 stylus 4-7 gstp 8-19

 

It puts all the IRQ handlers into core 0-3. You’ll see this later in the process below. You want to move your Ethernet & USB handler back to gstp cores you have isolation.

 

Here’s how I do it;

- Remove any core isolation

- Put back to default eg 0-19 or 0-how     . many cores you have.

- Reboot

- Type . Into Core isolation 

Menu will show up (don’t use a phone, screen will be too small, pc is better)

Note down 1st column & cpu numbers that relate to Ethernet card & USB card (any card really) I copied & pasted the data to Excel. 

- Then put your core isolation in & apply eg 0-10

- Then using 1st column & cpu number where your gstp is enter data into CPU isolation field & click apply. (You’ll need to remove your cpu isolation data to do this.

 

Here’s my example - irq/146 8 irq/148 10 irq/165 7 irq/166 8 irq/167 9 irq/168 10 irq/169 11 irq/170 12 irq/171 13 irq/172 14 irq/173 15 irq/157 19

 

example - IRQ/166 is from 1st column, the 8 is the cpu you want it to go to. 8 is part of my gstp core isolation

 

When you click apply, do it twice. 2nd time you’ll see something like this. 
 

Does it sound better? I’m not going to answer because it will cloud your judgment. Try it for yourself. 

[ASRMichael]

I’ve actually noticed a mistake I made. 733 is set to core 7, which is outside my gstp range of cores. Will change to 8. 

[ASRMichael]

17 minutes ago, TheAttorney said:

I've also had a go at this. Being a simple kinda guy, I went for a simple approach  without changing my current favourite core allocation of

 

        0 systemd 1 nfm 2 dhcpcd 2 dbus-daemon 2 haveged 2 lvmetad 2 avahi-daemon 2 gstp 2-6 stylus 6-7

 

I first checked the default IRQ situation by typing ".".

The irq's were evenly spread across my 8 virtual cores, and  the biggest IRQ activity (USB data) happens to be called irq-131 running on core 6 (which is shared between gstp and stylus).

 

I then looked for the quietest core I could find, in terms of visible processes, other IRQ activity and core temperature. This turned out to be core 3, which had only gstp and one of the smallest other IRQ activity. So I then isolated 131 onto that core by adding "irq/131 3" to the end of the above string. I don't know how accurate this amateur logic is, but you have to start somewhere.

 

In short, this was just a single IRQ isolation change added to the end of an unchanged main core isolation.

I will also not disclose the end result impact on SQ, as this is early days yet and I was still in the honeymoon period with the previous change, but I will say right now that you've got to try it 🙂.

 

I also tried a few other options of both IRQ and main core isolation changes and soon got into a muddle, so nothing conclusive to report on how far this can still go.

Hi your findings are the same as mine. 

 

IRQ typically spread across all core with default isolation. The key thing to note for others is; don’t think because it sits on the same core as your gstp there is no need to change. As soon as you put your core isolation in & hit apply it will put all the IRQ onto system core. In my case 0-3. For example 

 

USB IRQ was in my gstp core range (8-19) prior to setting core isolation 

 

When I set my core isolation it now put my USB IRQ to 0-3 core isolation range

 

The key is to now put it back to the gstp range. In my case 8-19

 

Took me a while to get my head round this. I confirmed my findings/understanding with Zeijko I was correct. 
 

I encourage others to try this. Hopefully in future releases as soon as you set your core isolation it can automatically set IRQ to gstp. Euphony hasn’t done any tests with regards to increase in sound quality. Hopefully many of us can try here and report our findings.