Building a DIY Music Server

[dminches]

1 hour ago, dctom said:

 

Externally powered from Hdplex 200w.

 

I would have expected a bigger difference then.  I need to check this out on my server.

 

[auricgoldfinger]

I've been trying to determine the quality of the clock offered by Fidelity Audio, and it has been a struggle.  Apparently, I am the first person to have asked about the phase noise characteristics of their clock.  It seems they may devote more effort to their voltage regulator than Pink Faun. 

 

This 40hz data in the attached graph is from the supplier of the range of oscillators they use.  Any thoughts?

 

phfobkoogonohchd.bmp

 

 

[dctom]

3 hours ago, dminches said:

 

I would have expected a bigger difference then.  I need to check this out on my server.

 

 

 

SGM extreme people make a big thing of not using SATA channel for storage of music files, they use Pcie M2. Apparantly sata channel is very noisy. 

[dminches]

2 hours ago, dctom said:

 

 

SGM extreme people make a big thing of not using SATA channel for storage of music files, they use Pcie M2. Apparantly sata channel is very noisy. 

 

According to Emile it all comes down to PCI having a direct path to the CPU as opposed to going through the chipset.  Makes sense.

 

[dminches]

I would need a different motherboard to use PCI storage since my Supermicro mobo only has 2 PCI lanes and they are being used by network and USB cards.

 

Is there an ATX motherboard which uses ECC ram?  I would like to continue to use the Apacer RAM, if possible.

 

[elan120]

5 minutes ago, dminches said:

Is there an ATX motherboard which uses ECC ram?  I would like to continue to use the Apacer RAM, if possible.

There are many, but for Intel CPU, most of them will not support ECC function, but ECC RAMs can still be used.

[zerung]

5 hours ago, elan120 said:

There are many, but for Intel CPU, most of them will not support ECC function, but ECC RAMs can still be used.

Xeon MB does support this

 

[StreamFidelity]

I started a new Audio PC project with a cable specialist. I would like to thank @Nenon for the many tips in this thread.

 

In order not to hijack this thread I started a new one. If interested: DIY Project High Performance Audio PC with high quality wiring.

[mikicasellas]

Guys,

 

If you only have ONE Paul Hynes SR4 (9v, 12v, 15v and 19v), what would you choose to power with it, where the SR4 would do most benefits :

 

CPU or JCAT USB FEMTO ?

 

Thanks !!

[Nenon]

Given that you have a pretty powerful CPU, the 4A the SR4 provides might be better on the JCAT. Your CPU would benefit from a power supply with more headroom. But the SR4 specs say that it supports 20A transient... so it may work fine on the CPU as well. You will have to experiment.

 

Also, it's hard to comment on a single piece / parameter in a bubble. The power supply strategy is something that in my opinion needs to be planned before you start building the PC. It's the foundation and the single most important component of a music server. What would you be powering up the JCAT USB with if you use the SR4 for the CPU? And what would you be powering up the CPU with if you use the SR4 for the JCAT USB?

[mikicasellas]

29 minutes ago, Nenon said:

Given that you have a pretty powerful CPU, the 4A the SR4 provides might be better on the JCAT. Your CPU would benefit from a power supply with more headroom. But the SR4 specs say that it supports 20A transient... so it may work fine on the CPU as well. You will have to experiment.

 

Also, it's hard to comment on a single piece / parameter in a bubble. The power supply strategy is something that in my opinion needs to be planned before you start building the PC. It's the foundation and the single most important component of a music server. What would you be powering up the JCAT USB with if you use the SR4 for the CPU? And what would you be powering up the CPU with if you use the SR4 for the JCAT USB?

My previous configuration was MacMini + NUC so the SR4 was planned for that scenario, at the moment i can not expend so MUCH more (an SR7 would be ideal) so i have to stick (for now) with what i already have, taking in count that until now i have spent 2,100 in this server without taking in count the SR4 and the Hdplex 200 that i already had, i m just trying to accommodate things as i move forward, maybe in a few months i will invest in a more adequate and sophisticated power supply for this server, now i want to squish the best from what i have

 

...2,400 with the added Ghent cables

[Energy]

On 2/20/2020 at 10:48 AM, auricgoldfinger said:

I've been trying to determine the quality of the clock offered by Fidelity Audio, and it has been a struggle.  Apparently, I am the first person to have asked about the phase noise characteristics of their clock.  It seems they may devote more effort to their voltage regulator than Pink Faun. 

 

This 40hz data in the attached graph is from the supplier of the range of oscillators they use.  Any thoughts?

 

phfobkoogonohchd.bmp 271.54 kB · 19 downloads

 

 

 

I've come across them before but the fact that they create clock boards but do not have phase noise plot graphs shown is otherworldly hence I never messaged them.

 

At 100Hz it looks around -108dB. Even a Crystek CCHD-575 at 100Hz can do -121dB or even -130dB depending on the frequency.

Powering them with low noise LT3045's with additional regulation (more added in series) will help PSRR which in turn should lower phase noise further. There are clocks out there that are even better, like Pink Faun Ultra OCXO which can do -145dB at 100Hz, but you gotta pay for it. These clocks however do not perform at the level of masterclocks like MUTEC REF 10, SOtM sCLK-OCX10, or Cybershaft Ultimate. These masterclocks although do not come in the frequencies required for direct connect, have 100Hz phase at around ~147.5dB but it's their 1Hz phase noise that matters. For the Pink Faun at 1Hz it's -100dB whereas the masterclock's (like the one listed above) are around -115dB. Companies like Cybershaft and MUTEC have even created custom models that cost a whole lot more for those who want better performing SC cut crystals (oscillators). For example, Cybershaft has their OP21 model that can do -121dB at 1Hz (hence the name) and MUTEC has responded in the same fashion by releasing their SE-120 model.

 

My guess on why 1Hz is so important is that improving it improves the total jitter of the system by a good margin. There are some audiophiles (eg. Cybershaft OP20 vs OP17 comparison) who can hear a difference in a few -dB's at 1Hz. My assumption is other than the total jitter improvement, 1Hz is fairly close to the 0Hz DC that is provided by the power supply which in turn affects it a lot more than other frequencies. But who really knows 😵

 

Here are some examples that can affect phase noise:

1. IEC with EMI/RFI Filter

2. Encapsulated Step Down Transformer (perhaps even balanced wiring) to limit magnetic radiation

3. Low ESR capacitors for quicker high pulse currents to the oscillator crystal and noise filtering

4. Oven to heat the crystal so it's frequencies are more stable

5. Galvanic Isolation between outputs in order to not influence the crystal

6. Proper use of film capacitors and star grounding to shunt noise and leakage currents from influencing crystal

7. Decoupling of the chassis with something like IsoAcoustics Gaia III to decouple it from the earths natural movements/shifts of it's tectonic plates

8. Shielding or using EMI/RFI Absorbing sheets to prevent high frequency EMI/RFI from affecting the crystal

 

Both (7) shielding and (8) decoupling might also help with the natural 7.83 Hz frequency the earth makes. It's a lot $&#%.

 

So if you are looking for a spot on replacement, you can just use Crystek CCHD 575's in the right frequency. If you want a little more, then I'd use a a small linear power supply connected to a LDOVR LT3045 to power the oscillator. However at higher levels, you'll want to read into the phase noise plot of each oscillator that you are thinking of buying.

 

For this reason is why I went with a SOtM sCLK-EX clock module and use a MUTEC REF 10 connected to it for even lower phase noise. This is thanks to the masterclock's low phase noise frequency now being used as a reference for the sCLK-EX. In turn it produces clock in whatever frequency you desire but with lower phase noise than if it did not have a reference connected to it. It is pricey but comes with four outputs. Each output costs $50 to program. The benefit of this method is for those who require more outputs and want to use a simple solution. It's also great for those who have already planned to get a masterclock in the future. I have one in the music server and another in the tX-USBultra which connects to all the clocks that are in the endpoint. I plan on getting another one and putting it into the Holo Audio May so it can replace the main clock (Crystek CCHD-957) and those used for multiple FPGA's. This in turn creates the lowest overall phase noise from when the music leaves the audio system until it's arrival at the DAC before conversion to analog. It in turn helps to create produce the most analog sound since it ultimately trying to remove the digital problem (jitter). The only sacrifice with this method is a lot of "spaghetti" clock cables dangling that can affect phase noise if it isn't short enough or using a quality cable. 

 

All in all, when it comes to clocks you must know that there are some clock locations that just simply cannot be improved. For example, some high quality DAC 's like Denafrips Terminator or Holo Audio May do not come with masterclock inputs. They rely on Crystek CCHD-957 that is used in their product as a reference for the PLL to create other frequencies out of. So even if they are using PLL like with other clock synthesizers that accept masterclock frequencies as a reference... the only way for it to accept a 10MHz signal from the masterclock directly is if the PLL chip within the DAC is reprogrammed to accept 10MHz. I don't think this works like wide voltage tolerance NUC's that accept a certain range of voltages and adjusts accordingly but correctly me if I'm wrong.

 

On 2/20/2020 at 3:17 PM, dminches said:

I would need a different motherboard to use PCI storage since my Supermicro mobo only has 2 PCI lanes and they are being used by network and USB cards.

 

Is there an ATX motherboard which uses ECC ram?  I would like to continue to use the Apacer RAM, if possible.

 

 

Intel server motherboards with Xeon work with ECC ram. 

AMD motherboards do too and does not require a server motherboard. They work for consumer motherboards and CPU's (eg. AMD Ryzen 2 and Ryzen 3). The main benefit of the server is that there is more slots to put ram which increases the bandwidth. This in some cases like the Taiko SGM Extreme improves sound quality. Having multiple CPU's however requires RDIMM's. On each RDIMM memory module there is a separate IC used for buffering (processing) to organize the workload given by multiple CPU's. With a single CPU only UDIMM's are needed as they are unbuffered (hence the "u") so whatever tasks comes comes and gets sent to DRAM. The use of these registered (hence the "r") buffer chips lighten the workload of the CPU memory controller so they work less hard and might improve the latency and ultimately the sound quality. One drawback of using multiple sticks of ram for a setup like this is that the more sticks used, the more voltage tolerance problems occur. This occurrence is from sticks that have memory module IC's that come from various batches used to make the final RAM stick. Thus if one really wants to increase bandwidth, then it's recommended to use Industrial RAM which solves this problem as they come from the same batch and are created with closer tolerances. Furthermore it is known that ECC sounds better as it corrects on the soft/hard bits that computers tend to make. Some people on the forum has found that to be the case including myself. So between Intel and AMD, I am more lenient of the later. However I believe romaz or austinpop found that their AMD machine sounded more digital than their Intel one unless they used a JCAT Net Card. So do experiment and let us know your findings.

 

Lastly, for those who are using HDPLEX 200W + HDPLEX 400W/800W HiFi DC-ATX or 800W. I think the idea is ridonculous. You are essentially using a 3mV (3,000µV) device and adding it with a 10mV (10,000µV) device to have a max output noise of 13mV (13,000µV). The HDPLEX 400W ATX Linear Power Supply may be a failure in it's independent output but it's ATX modular Output is a heck of a lot better:

 

Just saying but 3mV beats 13mV. And look at that DC current headroom!

So instead of upgrading to the 800W version of the DC-ATX converter for nearly $200 more just to gain a few decimals of an improvement in voltage tolerance, the money can probably be better invested towards the HDPLEX 400W ATX Linear Power Supply, or if you know circuitry, use the money to build a linear power supply out of the Belleson SPHP for <5µV on it's output instead of 3,000µV.

[gererick]

If the Pink Faun OCXO clock is -100 dB at 1 Hz, and the Mutec  Ref 10 is -115 at the same 1 Hz, BUT (I) the OCXO is 20 MHz while the Mutec is 10 Mhz, and (II) the OCXO is an inch-and-a-half from the USB port, whereas the Mutec has to add some noise via wires to and from it, how does one achieve comparability between the two, taking into account both (I) and (II)?

 

(I) should be perhaps easier to answer, but (II) has a lot of "it depends" associated with it (what power supply, what cables, length of cables) and likely cannot be measured broadly but instead on a case-by-case basis.

 

I am not technically savvy, so I want to be clear that I am asking, not trying to make a point.  Nenon and I have discussed this, however, and I opted not to use my Mutec Ref 10 and my SOTM as a result of that discussion.  Nothing but a USB cable between my server and DAC, at present

 

I would think it would be difficult for the Mutek to outperform the OCXO just given proximity to the USB port (1 1/2") and a hard-wired connection.  Just the BNC connections on the Mutec alone add noise, let alone wires to and from the master clock.  But I don't know.

 

I may hook up the SOTM Tx and the Mutec again, just for the heck of it.  But this is complicated by having recently bought a Synergistic Research Galileo SX USB cable.  I don't have two of them (the SOTM Tx needs two USB cables, to and from). The other USB cable would have to be my 0.3 meter Lush^2.  Thinking that through further, the expenditure on two USB cables of equal quality (instead of one), plus the cost of the Mutec and the SOTM plus whatever powers the SOTM are additional considerations.  By just having the USB cable and not the other stuff, one can afford an extraordinary USB cable.  That has less noise associated with it also.  And two extraordinary USB cables instead of one extraordinary USB cable has more noise as well.  Especially at one meter apiece.

 

Also, the Pink Faun USB card with the OXCO clock is getting very clean power from a Sean Jacobs power supply.  The SOTM would not, in my case, have access to that power in an experiment.

[jean-michel6]

On 2/20/2020 at 9:54 PM, dctom said:

 

 

SGM extreme people make a big thing of not using SATA channel for storage of music files, they use Pcie M2. Apparantly sata channel is very noisy. 

On my set up , I have disable all sata . It really made a nice sound quality improvement . For me sata and sata ssd is a no go .

uploading files into ram either from hdd/usb or sata ssd was always better from the hdd/usb . I did no try ssd/usb .

[Nenon]

It was quiet here for a moment, but @Energy dropped a bomb.

 

We can debate forever on some of that stuff. It's very easy to be convinced in a specific technology or a specific way of doing this and scratch every other option available. I haven't found this to be the right approach for me. I prefer to be open minded. Typically I would pick the technology that makes sense to me, implement it to the best of my ability and then go back to the other alternatives to try them and move on after I find what sounds best in my system. 

Let me comment on some of the topics @Energy mentioned - Intel vs. AMD, ECC vs. non-ECC RAM, OCXO clocks, and the HDPlex DC to DC convertors. 

 

Let's start with RAM and Intel vs. AMD.

9 hours ago, Energy said:

Furthermore it is known that ECC sounds better as it corrects on the soft/hard bits that computers tend to make. Some people on the forum has found that to be the case including myself. So between Intel and AMD, I am more lenient of the later.

 

On 2/18/2020 at 10:43 PM, Dev said:

@Nenon and others,

 

have any of you guys compared Intel vs AMD ? I think @Nenon has built both, so he must have some idea. Are there much differences between the two ? If one is starting a fresh build (and leaving the behind the price for now), is there a consensus which one sounds better ?

 

I've had an Intel i9-9900K and AMD Ryzen 7 3700x builds side by side in my system and might have been the first who wrote about this in the Novel thread. I can tell you that they sound different. But I cannot tell you which one is better. I think it's a matter of personal preference. I did not like the motherboard USB output on the AMD as much as I did on the Intel build. Once you take the digital output from the PCIe, it's hard to say which one is better. 

Then, I did a lot of RAM chip comparisons. About a year ago I had no idea that RAM could make a difference. No, that's not the right statement. I was absolutely convinced that RAM could not make any difference at all. Silly me.

However, curiosity made me check that, and I was shocked to discover that RAM makes a significant difference. I managed to obtain some Apacer RAM for myself. And I could not believe my ears. One of the guys here convinced me to do a group RAM order, which I did, and I am very thankful that almost everybody who participated in that group buy gave me some feedback. That helped me tremendously to understand how the Apacer RAM changed the sound in different systems. There was an improvement in every system. Some systems benefited a lot more than others. There were two common denominators I noticed. First, people with more resolving systems experienced bigger impact (improvement). And second, the people who had better power supplies (cleaner power) benefitted much more from the Apacer RAM. For those who had custom double regulated SR7s or custom double regulated Sean Jacobs DC3 power supplies, it was a match in heaven. They would typically hear the improvement from the first note after swapping the RAM. The other interesting thing was that on average it took two weeks to break in and even after the break in, if you just take the RAM out and put it back in, it resets some of the settled effects and needs more break in time (not weeks but at least 2 hours or maybe a full day). Those are statistics I have collected over time thanks to all of you. 

Having access to all kinds of different RAM modules, I did a lot of testing myself. I discovered two things that are important - quality and speed. For completeness I will repeat what I have said in other posts:

1. Non-ECC Apacer 2400MHz was better than the Non-ECC G.Skill 3200Mhz.

2. Non-ECC Apacer 2666MHz was better than the Non-ECC Apacer 2400MHz.

3. ECC Apacer 2666MHz was better than Non-ECC Apacer 2666MHz.

But that does not mean that the ECC RAM sounds better, because "it corrects on the soft/hard bits that computers tend to make". No, it's not better for that, even if that contributes to some degree. And here is why I am saying that. I recently discovered that the ECC RAM can work on motherboards that don't support ECC RAM, such as the Intel Z390 gaming motherboards that are popular here and I used in the build in this thread. If you install ECC RAM in that motherboard, it would work as Non-ECC RAM. I compared the same version of ECC RAM and Non-ECC RAM in the build in this thread. And the ECC RAM sounded better. Not because "it corrects on the soft/hard bits that computers tend to make". It does not correct anything, because it is working as Non-ECC RAM. My only explanation is that the ECC RAM was built better / better quality. 

So for those who think the ECC RAM (working as ECC and correcting some errors that makes the sound so much better) is the holy grail and that determines what motherboard and CPU to take, please think twice. You can probably use the ECC RAM as Non-ECC, and it still sounds really good and better than anything else I have tried. So, I would not prefer AMD Ryzen just for that.  Motherboards make a big difference. I have compared quite a few. The RAM is not the only factor, and I feel like it is a bad decision to plan your build around ECC RAM because it corrects something. I am not saying that correction does not contribute to the sound, but that's hard to test, and there is obviously a lot more than that for RAM to sound good=. 

 

Power supplies.

9 hours ago, Energy said:

Lastly, for those who are using HDPLEX 200W + HDPLEX 400W/800W HiFi DC-ATX or 800W. I think the idea is ridonculous. You are essentially using a 3mV (3,000µV) device and adding it with a 10mV (10,000µV) device to have a max output noise of 13mV (13,000µV). The HDPLEX 400W ATX Linear Power Supply may be a failure in it's independent output but it's ATX modular Output is a heck of a lot better:

 

Just saying but 3mV beats 13mV. And look at that DC current headroom!

 

Well, again, none of these numbers tell us anything about how these things sound in our systems, right? They definitely don't tell ME anything about the sound. What about output impedance? What cables are you using? How long are they? How much headroom it has? How fast it can handle transients? I can keep going on and on. The only thing I agree with is that 10 + 3 = 13. Can't argue with that. And I also prefer full linear power supply with separate rails for everything as long as they are good quality - which means the HDPLEX 200W does not qualify, but more on that later. 

Let's forget about the numbers for a moment and talk about actual experience comparing these products. I have done different builds. The one in this thread is one of the best power supply arrangements I have done. There is actually only one that was better than this, but I can't talk about it. I have also used a whole range or power supplies, DC to DC regulators, ATX convertors, nanoATX, etc. etc. 

Generally speaking I try to stay away from the HDPlex linear power supplies. I have also done some builds with the HDPLEX 400W HiFi DC-ATX. And I was not impressed. But for someone who already had only one rail of decent power supply and did not want to spend more, that was a good budget option with possibility for upgrades in the future. So here is my experience. 

1. The most important point - not everything works equally in all builds. What worked well in my low powered systems did not work well in my high powered CPU systems. Keep that in mind. Most of my experiments have been with 65W-95W TDP CPUs like the Intel i9 and AMD Ryzen 7. I will focus on those below. 

2. For some reason the HDPLEX 800W DC-ATX sounds better than the HDPLEX 400W HiFi DC-ATX. I don't know why, but it does. It wasn't until I tried the HDPLEX 800W DC-ATX that I considered using a SMPS DC to DC ATX devices. Basically the 800W has been a drop-in replacement upgrade (for the HDPLEX 400W HiFi DC-ATX) in most cases. 

3. No matter what the numbers say, an HDPLEX 800W DC-ATX powered by a really good quality power supply (i.e. Sean Jacobs DC3 in my case) sounds a lot better in my system than a directly connected HDPLEX 200W. 

4. More power of the same quality sounds better and improves dynamics. My CPU is running fine with 12V@4A. But feed it with a LPS of the same quality that can deliver 12V@6A and it sounds even better. Feed it with a LPS of the same quality that can deliver 12V@10A and it sounds even better. Same is true for 15A. And that's all I have tried so far. Someone has a really good one that can deliver 30A? I would love to try it :). Why that extra power helps? I don't know. I can't catch peaks much higher than 4A with the measurement devices I have. I guess that dynamic headroom is quite important here with linear power supplies. 

 

Based on #3 and #4, would connecting an HDPLEX 200W via it's 19V@10A (190W) output to a HDPLEX 800W DC-ATX sound better than connecting the 12V@10A (120W) + 5V@2A (10W) + 3.3V@2A (6.6W)? I don't know. I kind of doubt it. But 190W is more than 136.6W... and read #4 above. I am still kind of sceptical to be honest, but is it worth a try? Why not. You would never know for sure until you try it. Would I consider trying this with the HDPLEX 200W + HDPLEX 400W HiFi DC-ATX? No, I don't think so. Would I consider trying this with the HDPLEX 200W + HDPLEX 800W DC-ATX? Maybe... if I had the time.

 

OCXO Clocks.

I left that as the last topic. And this is a hot topic in my mind currently. I am not an expert here, but I am applying a similar approach as with power supplies, RAM, motherboards, etc. To repeat what I said in the beginning of my post:

Quote

Typically I would pick the technology that makes sense to me, implement it to the best of my ability and then go back to the other alternatives to try them and move on after I find what sounds best in my system. 

As far as my understanding about OCXO clocks goes, it's easier to make a low phase noise OCXO clock at 10MHz than to achieve the same at 25MHz. The phase noise at specific frequency is not the only important variable and it's probably not even measured consistently between all manufacturers. The implementation of the clock is arguably even more important than the quality of the clock itself. Short path to the chip is important. I studied how PLLs are implemented recently, and they are not perfect. I have many questions and not a lot of answers yet. While I am doing studies on this, I am trying to identify what is a sales or marketing BS and what actually makes sense. SOTM for example are saying that you can replace ANY clock with theirs and it would be an improvement. They have repeatedly said that if we replace the Crystek clock on the JCAT USB card (and NET Femto), it would sound better. I wonder if @Marcin_gps knew that. They said that we should start replacing the OCXO clocks with their clocks. Well, I am not buying into all these things unfortunately.

I can't imagine that on something that sensitive as the clock, we can add connectors, long cables, an external reference clock, introduce PLL that converts the master clock frequency, and it would be all much much better than a well implemented good quality clock a fraction of an inch away of the chip with clean power and done with good care. And most of these clocks we are replacing have single ended signal, not differential. What happens with the noise those long cables catch from the outside. But hey, we are open minded people, so I am willing to give it a try. The ultimate test would be how it sounds. 

But before I do that, I would start with the technology that makes more sense to me. And that is not the SOTM clocks, connectors, cables, and external master clock. My first preference is the best quality OCXO I can find, implemented with the shortest possible wires (the best silver I have found), powered by the best power supply (again with the shortest possible DC cables and regulators sitting right next to the clock), sitting on a RMI/RFI and vibration isolation. I am also a truly believer that every clock benefits tremendously from vibration isolation. Every time I posted that last year, I was shot by objective engineers, but since this is my thread and now they have their own forum, I hope that won't happen again. 

And here is what I am doing.

 

Clock removed. Silver wires soldered.

 

Carbon fiber plate installed. To be replaced with much thicker one. More holes for ventilation would be added. I believe the carbon fiber has some EMI/RFI properties and also vibration treating... but even if it did not, I like how it looks. The white standoff to be replaced with black vibration isolation ones. 

 

The clock installed with a temporary DC connector for testing purposes.

 

I am testing every clock on the motherboard to find out where it makes sense to have one and where it does not. A lot of listening tests ahead of me. Once I settled on all that, I would not mind trying the SOTM clock with external reference clock to see which one is better. I think that is the right way to test these things, rather than looking at the spec sheets. 

 

[Iving]

really appreciate you guys blogging your experiences

[StreamFidelity]

@Nenon A really well thought out and structured article. Thank you for your thoughts.

 

58 minutes ago, Nenon said:

However, curiosity made me check that, and I was shocked to discover that RAM makes a significant difference.

 

Is there also a software-based solution for this? Possibly: MinorityClean. 

Quote

A utility that cleans up the CPU registers. Targets "General-purpose registers", "MMX registers", and "XMM registers", and matches the internal circuit standards of memory chips.

 

I was very skeptical and feared that I would have to pay a ransom for the encrypted hard drives. 😂

 

But everything is fine and it brings about improved clarity in my system. In jplay forum Pink HQ + Minorityclean you can find a lot of sound descriptions, which I think is mostly exaggerated. The effect is not immediately audible and takes a few hours for me. If I deactivate it, I missed these clear sound structures without sharpening. The tool costs nothing. Just try. But hey! It's not my fault if your hard drives are encrypted or if the Japanese military is listening. 😎

[Energy]

To clarify, the end goal has always been sound quality, which is subjective but at least that'll start us with some commonality. 

 

Everything requires proper implementation. Even with proper implementation sometimes certain components can sound poorly when used in a system that has bad synergy. Which is why this hobby is a complete loop and in order to understand the system better, more specifically YOUR system, you have to change out things one by one while making sure everything is properly burned in so there is no placebo going on. Which is why I envy your persistence for this hobby and enjoy your updates.

 

Speaking quickly on the RAM. I found that frequency does not play a big of a role than say industrial quality or ECC specified RAM, hence why the 3200MHz consumer sticks I was using too did not sound as good. This also includes the CL timings. The Industrial/Wide Temperature ones have shown good results with those who have tried them whereas ECC is still only a recent matter. It does correct the soft/hard bit errors but you just might not hear it. Or you might hear something different but not necessarily better in this case. It requires either a very sensitive setup, the right headphones, amplifier, DAC, or the right amount of sleep. After all, our eyes and ears work better on different days. To say so conclusively as to what a wise choice would be is that no one should build a system around ECC "enabled" RAM, that I'll agree with you 100%. But the difference is there. Either from ECC or just the quality of the module themselves. You yourself noticed this when they were used without ECC enabled in another system. I'm not fond of taking guesses but my best one would be that ECC/Industrial produced RAM come in even smaller batches than industrial alone ones so perhaps their tolerances are even closer.

For those looking to upgrade their RAM, Industrial ones SHOULD give you an improvement (due to closer voltage tolerances between IC's), but don't fixate too heavily on ECC RAM. In this hobby of wishful thinking even I must admit what I heard in improvements could be from wishful thinking and buyers justification mindset, all forms of placebo. Regardless of which, even in that category, at the end it's all about self satisfaction may it a fairy tale. After all, we're all trying to wake up like The Matrix here and see what the truth really is, hence all the experimentation. On the subject of RAM, currently I have purchased an aluminum heatsink for the four sticks of Apacer I have. I am going to see if cooling them helps in any way. If not, maybe the metal shielding will do something in rejecting EMI/RFI so they can perform better, it's a valid thought right?

 

What you said on power supplies is true. It's not all about output noise but a collection of things that goes on the topic of implementation yet again. Things such as voltage tolerances, current headroom, output noise, transient response, discrete vs non-discrete, super-capacitors vs without, amount of regulation, Low Pass LC Filters (Pi, Legendry, Chebyshev Pi, Butterworth) vs basic filtering, balanced step down transformers, ferrite/chokes (wrapped around wires), boutique parts (rhodium IEC, GX16 connectors, audiophile wires and capacitors, EMI/RFI absorbing sheets,), proper cooling, and chassis decoupling all play vital roles in how well a power supply performs and which would be more optimal for what circuit. I only list the 10 + 3 = 13 as a way to show that we are back paddling. Audiophiles who are known to use inefficient linear power supplies that are in the single digit uV and now paying little attention to noise level and utilizing higher efficiency but noisy SMPS converters. It's so opposite. There are better options. In general higher current, lower noise, and voltage tolerance are the three main staple. The boutique part is subjective (although I am guilty on leaning here) and the methodology of how the power supply is built affects each line-load differently, not just because their impedance or current draw differs but their preference for power can variate. Like how the input stage of some amplifiers having high impedance, the output impedance of power supplies being low might also not always be a good thing. A transient response that is delayed might be better than a faster one for a particular load. Maybe the load can't appreciate high pulse currents. The list goes on. It all comes back to experimentation but more importantly, know what you are experimenting. For example, Farad uses a Pi filter to create a cutoff frequency to not allow high frequencies (eg. cutoff after 0Hz to not allow noise to pass other than the DC alone) to go through and into the voltage regulator. Because they incorporate this, I have found it to make more of an improvement on digital gear as those gears can appreciate that improved shunting of high frequency noise. Just my 2 cents. Know the inner workings of things so you can experiment in all directions. Don't try the same place twice unless it is somewhat different or if you want to confirm one final time before departing with a set conclusion.

 

I was unaware that it was easier to make a low phase noise OCXO at 10MHz than it was to make it in 25MHz, thank you. I still believe the phase noise matters but like you say, it only gives us a small window into what it's really capable of (good and bad). Regardless of which clock, the layout still stands that it should have the shortest path possible to where it is being connected to. This can be a tough challenge especially like your photo when finding a properly location to replace the chipset oscillator. I for one am at the other end of you. I've tried a bunch of Crystek and custom measured NDK's with even lower noise before listening to @elan120 and switching over to the sCLK-EX. It was yet still better than everything I had tried and even more so with a masterclock despite a longer run. I hope to meet you half way one day by replacing one or two clocks with Pink Faun Ultra OCXO in the most vital area of the system just to see if there is any difference between the two to justify the purchase of such an expensive OCXO. But it needs to be done to really not look back. I think you feel the same in regards to the SOtM clocks. And don't be shy of your belief. It's been said by Cybershaft and MUTEC that a clock without vibration isolation can increase by a couple +dB. Hence why I prefer having the MUTEC REF 10's OCXO separate from the rest of the system, not mounted on shaky mounting brackets, and on isolation feet's like the IsoAcoustics Gaia III. Also you never know how much light movement the earth makes as it shifts it's tectonic plates and crates a light whiplash on the audio gear or how it's natural 7.83 hertz frequency can affect the SC cut crystal. 

 

Either way, I firmly believe what you're doing by starting with the best quality OCXO and working up from there is a smart move. I on the other hand populated my whole system with sCLK-EX. I may get the musical benefits now but hearing a clock swap is much more difficult although I will try. It's too late to throw back in old oscillators. You starting from stock and then jumping end game would surely be a dramatic change enough to figure out what location has the biggest perks. I await for your experiments.

 

Lastly, I have some carbon pipes in many different sizes. If you want to do something with them just let me know the size and I'll cut it down for you and mail it to you. It could be put to good use. Maybe around a wire for shielding purposes and dampening as you say (true). I also have a roll of  tinned copper braid a 1000M roll of mylar aluminum foil in 17mm (I think..). 

 

 

  

 

[Miska]

6 minutes ago, Energy said:

The Industrial/Wide Temperature ones have shown good results with those who have tried them whereas ECC is still only a recent matter. It does correct the soft/hard bit errors but you just might not hear it. Or you might hear something different but not necessarily better in this case.

 

Note that if your CPU doesn't support ECC functionality (Intel Xeon's do), it is just one extra bit per word of available memory that is sitting unused. So unless CPU's memory controller actually does something about the parity bit, it doesn't have any error correction effect.

 

Typical result of bit errors is application or operating system crash.

 

Note though that tight packed DDR3L SO-DIMMS are more susceptible of certain types of memory errors than desktop/server full size DDR4 memory.

 

[RickyV]

Clock replacement guide from newclassd but works for all clocks. 

http://newclassd.com/index.php

[TheAttorney]

6 hours ago, Nenon said:

Let's start with RAM and Intel vs. AMD...

 

A great post that answers so many questions, but I can still think of a few more on RAM 🙂:

 

1. Is 2 better than 1? E.g. is 2 x 4GB better than 1 x 8GB?

(Some say 2x is better because of load balancing. OTOH it may result in slightly greater power consumption and noise. And greater cost). 

 

2. Is it a bad idea to mix 2 slightly different memory specs?

In particular, a 2400 Apacer and a 2666 Apacer in adjacent slots.

 

3. How big a SQ step is the 2666 above a 2400 Apacer, compared to a 2400 Apacer above a typical non-industrial RAM?

And same question for ECC above non-ECC?

I'm guessing there are diminishing returns here.

 

Thank you

[Energy]

1 hour ago, TheAttorney said:

A great post that answers so many questions, but I can still think of a few more on RAM 🙂:

 

1. Is 2 better than 1? E.g. is 2 x 4GB better than 1 x 8GB?

(Some say 2x is better because of load balancing. OTOH it may result in slightly greater power consumption and noise. And greater cost). 

 

2. Is it a bad idea to mix 2 slightly different memory specs?

In particular, a 2400 Apacer and a 2666 Apacer in adjacent slots.

 

3. How big a SQ step is the 2666 above a 2400 Apacer, compared to a 2400 Apacer above a typical non-industrial RAM?

And same question for ECC above non-ECC?

I'm guessing there are diminishing returns here.

 

Thank you

 

Starting off are general answers, but the answers themselves are open to variable change depending on your system. 

1. In the multiple test configurations that I ran, 2 sticks sounded better than one. But only when the device was given adequate power. That means that on a music server that is given enough current, the dual channel bandwidth (or multiple sticks) and latency of data queue’s improved the sound quality despite requiring another 1.2V memory module that added additional power consumption. The closer the PSU was to it’s max current limitation, the more narrow these benefits became. For example on the endpoint I once used a 3A linear power supply that was cutting it close and when the second RAM was added, it actually became harmful to the sound. It wasn’t until I had switched over to a 5A did the improvement of the second stick become apparent. YMMV.

 

2. If they are of similar build then running both Apacer model’s at the same frequency shouldn’t be too far off, given that their PCB layout (traces) and IC’s are similar. However if the comparison was with different brands or models then given the two reasons above it would be a bad idea to mix them. Even Apacer sticks that run the same frequency but designed with different initial stated frequencies can come from different batches that don’t work as similarly. Given that, it’s probably a better idea to get only industrial with the same frequencies to be more certain that they perform more similarly. But right now harmful it is with the current configuration you have really depends.

 

3. In very rough numbers, I found the 2666 to be maybe 2% better than the 2400 (both industrial), and ECC was only maybe 1-2% at most. Both were at least 3% better than non-industrial. The changes in these specifications was more significant for the endpoint than it was for the music server. With the endpoint, since I use an AMD based NUC/Mini PC called the ASROCK iBOX-V1000 that supported ECC out of the box, I started off with low CL14 HyperX consumer RAM before directly moving over to ECC/Industrial. Where I got maybe 7% total improvement on the server, the endpoint on the other hand felt closer to 10%. My guess was that it is in the middle Of the audio chain and responsible for handing off the music file hence played a slightly more important role whether that operation went smoothy or not. An operation where RAM plays a fairly important role since the unit is made up of very few things (motherboard, CPU, and memory). Not to mention the AudioLinux operating system was off-loaded to the RAM via RAMBOOT so that could be a major contributor on why RAM made more of a difference here.

 

I’m sure Nenon will chime in on this as well with his thoughts.

[Dev]

for folks who are using a single DIMM in a two or four slot configuration - be careful into which slot you insert the DIMM into as it should be placed on one which has the shortest path to the CPU. The motherboard manual will most likely have details on how you need to populate. I find this to be very critical to sound quality.

[ripples]

Deleted

 

 

[RickyV]

1 hour ago, Energy said:

 

Starting off are general answers, but the answers themselves are open to variable change depending on your system. 

1. In the multiple test configurations that I ran, 2 sticks sounded better than one. But only when the device was given adequate power. That means that on a music server that is given enough current, the dual channel bandwidth (or multiple sticks) and latency of data queue’s improved the sound quality despite requiring another 1.2V memory module that added additional power consumption. The closer the PSU was to it’s max current limitation, the more narrow these benefits became. For example on the endpoint I once used a 3A linear power supply that was cutting it close and when the second RAM was added, it actually became harmful to the sound. It wasn’t until I had switched over to a 5A did the improvement of the second stick become apparent. YMMV.

 

2. If they are of similar build then running both Apacer model’s at the same frequency shouldn’t be too far off, given that their PCB layout (traces) and IC’s are similar. However if the comparison was with different brands or models then given the two reasons above it would be a bad idea to mix them. Even Apacer sticks that run the same frequency but designed with different initial stated frequencies can come from different batches that don’t work as similarly. Given that, it’s probably a better idea to get only industrial with the same frequencies to be more certain that they perform more similarly. But right now harmful it is with the current configuration you have really depends.

 

3. In very rough numbers, I found the 2666 to be maybe 2% better than the 2400 (both industrial), and ECC was only maybe 1-2% at most. Both were at least 3% better than non-industrial. The changes in these specifications was more significant for the endpoint than it was for the music server. With the endpoint, since I use an AMD based NUC/Mini PC called the ASROCK iBOX-V1000 that supported ECC out of the box, I started off with low CL14 HyperX consumer RAM before directly moving over to ECC/Industrial. Where I got maybe 7% total improvement on the server, the endpoint on the other hand felt closer to 10%. My guess was that it is in the middle Of the audio chain and responsible for handing off the music file hence played a slightly more important role whether that operation went smoothy or not. An operation where RAM plays a fairly important role since the unit is made up of very few things (motherboard, CPU, and memory). Not to mention the AudioLinux operating system was off-loaded to the RAM via RAMBOOT so that could be a major contributor on why RAM made more of a difference here.

 

I’m sure Nenon will chime in on this as well with his thoughts.

Have you compared the NUC7I7DN.. and the iBox v1000 and which did you prefer?