Article: CAPS Twenty | Part One

[barrows]

Cool Chris, I am very much looking forward to the CAPS TWENTY article, as I need a powerful main server for HQPlayer use, and I am no computer building/sourcing expert!  I am assuming you will be running an I9-9900K in the Twenty...

 

[barrows]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

One should never assume. 😁

Agreed, I should have said, "guessing"!

[barrows]

On 6/22/2020 at 8:14 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

Intel sent me two options :~)

 

Ahh, so I9-10900K, that will get the job done.  A very expensive option of course, and I think this means that your main board choice will not be compatible with I9-9900K, which is entirely capable and a lot less money.  Oh well...  I am still looking forward to the next installment.

[barrows]

8 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

More than likely NOT. The amount of power needed for that CPU is in the range of ~70 watts idle and ~275 watts at full bore use. It cannot be passively cooled either.

 

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/05/intels-new-i9-10900k-fast-yes-competitive-not-so-much/#:~:text=The%20good%20news%20is%2C%20although,145W%E2%80%94it's%20still%20no%20Threadripper.

 

I would be looking at the little Ryzen all in one boards, like the UDOO Bolt - https://www.udoo.org/udoo-bolt/

 

Low power and has plenty of horsepower.

 

 

Go back in the comments a bit, and you will see the picture Chris posted of the 10th Generation Intel processors Chris has for the build.

Chris has stated that his intent is to build a powerful server to take full advantage of HQPlayer 4 processing, that basically requires an active cooling system to work well with the EC modulators.  There is no problem using an active cooling system when the two machines are going to be connected over the Network and the Twenty can be located far from the audio system in another part of the home. 

[barrows]

13 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough when I described this as a two PC system and this is the audio endpoint that's the NAA? 

Or perhaps some did not actually read the introduction which I feel was very clear and spelled out your approach perfectly!

[barrows]

Jussi has mentioned quite a few times that the most important spec for running serious oversampling algos (the EC modulators) in HQP is the base clock speed.  The processor with the higher base clock speed is the one to use.  It appears to be well accepted that the I9-9900K processor runs the EC modulators perfectly well, but the SGC I9 machine does not use the "K" processor, so I believe the base clock speed is lower.

I do not think the I9 machine from @agillis can run HQPlayer 4, with the EC 7th order modulator at DSD 256 (poly sinc 2 EXT filter), but I would love to proven wrong on this.

 

I would prefer to run a Sonic Transporter here, if it could do HQP 4, with the EC modulators to DSD 256...

 

Folks have already confirmed that the I9-9900K does fine, and I am sure the slightly faster I9-10900K will do it fine as well.

 

 

[barrows]

49 minutes ago, bobflood said:

If memory serves the i9-9900KS is even a better choice as it will turbo two cores even higher than the 9900K. However, if there is going to be a serious GPU for off loading the filters then an i5 9400 or 10400 will work just fine. I run an i5 8400 without a GPU and I can easily do DSD 256 ASDM7EC with poly-sinc ext2. It is the high demand filters that drive the need for the i9-9900x chips not the modulators. For the modulators it is all about getting two cores to run at 4.0 Ghz or slightly higher constantly without thermal throttling. This is why Intel sent Chris an i5 as well as the i9 to test. The problem with the i9 when running without a GPU is that it becomes very difficult to passively cool. The TDP under load is way over 95 watts and most passive cool cases that I have seen top out at 95 watts. This leaves active liquid or active air cooling each with greater complexity and/or noise. The i5 on the other hand is a 65 watt chip so under load it might reach 95 watts and still be able to be passively cooled.  The real real problem comes when trying to cool a GPU passively. The ones that can be heat piped are under the needed capacity and the capable ones require some form of active cooling which is usually air cooling and that means a potential noise issue. Sadly there is no magic bullet right now that is silent, can run every filter and that can do DSD 256 via EC modulators. And, as I have said elsewhere here there is nothing on the horizon that will allow for doing DSD512 via EC modulators. That would require a chip that could run two cores at 8 Ghz continuously without melting. Maybe the i19-999999 S to be released in Q2 of 2030. It will likely come with a liquid nitrogen cooler and require a dedicated 30 amp circuit.

 

I have tried to run EC modulators with higher level processors than the I5 you says works fine, were you running overclocking, and specially configured bios?  Were you also running Roon on the same machine?  I have no interest in having to run Roon on a separate machine, for example.  Indeed, I did not attempt to run the more difficult filters (1x) and am quite happy with the performance of the poly-sink ext2 filter.

I must say I still do not understand anyone's resistance to having active cooling?  I have no problem with having a well configured fan based cooling system to keep the machine at a reasonable temperature, after all, there is no way i am going to have a computer doing this much processing, and all the electrical noise and airborne RF noise it creates, anywhere near the audio system: I keep powerful computers off in the work room, where they have no effect on the audio system in the listening area.  To me it seems much simpler to use an active, air cooled system, and this approach should also be able to contribute to proper performance and reliability.

[barrows]

12 minutes ago, 57gold said:

 

Will the CAPS connect to a DAC with a D to D, or will all the efforts to handle the signal received from the heavy duty computer make one of those unnecessary?

It would probably be a compromise to directly connect a very powerful computer (as this will be) directly to a DAC, either via direct USB, or through an intermediary D-D converter.  A computer with this level of processing power is going to be very noisy electrically and in terms of RF (airborne) noise.  Combining this powerful server/oversampling engine with a remote endpoint, like the Twenty.one, or another Ethernet Renderer of one's choice, and getting it well away from the audio system is a much better idea.

[barrows]

11 minutes ago, bobflood said:

Direct connection might work fine IF one can isolate the USB output with something like the JCAT USB card as the output device as it can be independently powered or one of the many USB isolation devices available. Still, I personally would not want a high powered server machine in close proximity to my audio system but that said many here are doing just that and reporting good results.

My testing and measurements led me to the conclusion that servers like this with any proximity to the audio system are very problematic.  The airborne RF emitted by a server which includes storage drive(s) and and an OTS motherboard is not to be underestimated.  Additionally, the amount of noise coming out of the power supply side, and being put back on the AC power system is also very significant.  Even with very powerful line filters, (even AC regenerators) this noise went right onto the AC line, and was seen on the AC power cabling going into the audio system components.  Back when i was trying to optimize direct connected (USB) servers I ended up with a fully battery powered server to stop the AC line noise problem, but the airborne RF still existed.  Linear power supplies made little or no difference, the noise was being produced by the MoBo and the hard drives (SSD or spinning discs did not matter either, in fact it usually appears that SSDs were worse, which was odd).

The only real solution which ended up working, was getting the serving computer well away, electrically and physically, from the audio system.  Best to have it in another part of the home, powered from the opposite phase of the AC home power, and isolated from the audio system by optical fiber Ethernet.

The electrical connection via USB is not the only problem.

 

[barrows]

47 minutes ago, Ben-M said:

1. Needs to run Windows 10, so those poor T+A DAC 8 DSD owners like myself, and many other DACs, can leverage the USB input of their DAC to get that sweet, sweet DSD512 injection. DSD256 and DSD512 input over USB have a low support rating via Linux to the DAC due to the hardware configurations/limitations of many USB input interfaces in the DACs. DSD512 especially so, so Windows it has to be, unless you either don't have the sample rate need or don't have the DAC interface issue, in which case Chris already advised us all, this is probably not the one for you.

Doesn't the DAC 8 use the Amanero USB interface?  It can easily do DSD 512 via linux, in fact I am doing so right now with no problems via a microRendu, no need for Windows...  You just need the 2006be 11 firmware, or newer...

[barrows]

@Ben-M, it is actually quire easy to re-flash the Amanero interface with the 2006be 11 or 13, or whatever firmware.  

 

But if you are OK running a windows renderer that is fine as well.  I was just responding to your claim that T+A DAC owners "need(s) to run Windows 10, ... to get that sweet, sweet DSD 512 injection."  Which is just not true, 10 minutes to reflash the Amanero is all it takes to run DSD 512 on linux.  I am pretty sure many DAC 8 users have done just that.  Although I did find it frustrating how long it took the Amanero guys to finally get it right. 

[barrows]

Sonore publishes a list of DACs which are confirmed to be supported for native DSD on Sonore Renderers.  This list is not complete, as there are new DACs coming out all the time and it is impossible to keep track of every DAC.  When a DAC maker develops a new  or different operating systems in USB receiver/code, it is up to them to insure compatibility (or not!).  The Sonore software team is constantly working with the rest of the Linux community behind the scenes to insure compatibility with as many DACs as possible.  Unfortunately, some DAC producers are not so diligent.

At Sonore we are happy to help any DAC manufacturer which approaches us to insure compatibility with Linux based Servers and Renderers.

DoP will always work, but native DSD requires getting the code correct, as there is no accepted standard.

 

The T+A DAC 8 is compatible with Linux up to DSD 512 with the right firmware in the Amanero USB receiver, as is any DAC using the Amanero USB receiver with the correct Amanero code.  I use the Amanero here with my DSC-2 and DSD 512 and it works perfectly.  If one has a DAC with the Amanero USB interface, just be sure to run the 2006be 11 firmware for native DSD.

 

Funny thing is, cheap Chinese DACs, like Topping et al, always seem to work flawlessly for Native DSD up to 512 and even 1024!  

[barrows]

On 7/5/2020 at 7:11 AM, R1200CL said:

I think the readers should be told which DAC’s. So far only T+A is mentioned.

 

 

After some research, and contacting Thesycon, I have confirmed that the new T+A DACs (using the Thesycon USB receiver code, such as the H 200 headphone amp) should work fine for Native DSD from linux based sources such as Sonore.

And the older T+A DAC 8, which uses the Amanero USB interface, should also work fine as long as one runs the correct software for Native DSD on the Amanero interface (2006be 11).