Article: SOtM Launches sMB-Q370 Motherboard

[oneguy]

So based on the manual, an i5 is the most powerful 9th gen cpu you can put in it due to the core vs TDP limit. 
 

With 8th gen you can go to i9. 

[Imosolar]

These are the part list when you consider using The SMB-Q370 together. 

 

CPU : i9 or i7 65w tdp model

https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i9-9th-gen-core-i9-9900/p/N82E16819118023

https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i7-9th-gen-core-i7-9700/p/N82E16819118024

https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i5-9th-gen-core-i5-9600/p/N82E16819118060

https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i3-9th-gen-core-i3-9300/p/N82E16819118070

 

Case : https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07MGKJB29/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1

If you use this case, you can use the following finless cooler.

https://www.amazon.com/NoFan-CR-80EH-IcePipe-Fanless-Cooler/dp/B00HW2O2L2

 

Or you may be able to use this streacom case, but we didn’t try it out, so not 100% for sure whether it would fit..

https://streacom.com/products/fc10-alpha-fanless-chassis/

 

Power : https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07X9VYLHH/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

Ram : 

https://www.amazon.com/SAMSUNG-PC4-21300-2666MHz-Desktop-M378A1K43DB2-CTD/dp/B00XLXWD5S/ref=psdc_172500_t3_B07F72RJYN

https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-PC4-21300-2666MHZ-desktop-memory/dp/B07F6L771D/ref=psdc_172500_t2_B00XLXWD5S

https://www.newegg.com/kingston-8gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820242427?&quicklink=true

https://www.newegg.com/kingston-16gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820242426?&quicklink=true

 

SSD :

https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-500GB-NAND-Internal-3400MB/dp/B087QTMXS7/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=CT500P5SSD8&qid=1616623716&s=electronics&sr=1-3

https://www.newegg.com/samsung-970-evo-plus-250gb/p/N82E16820147741?&quicklink=true

From 

Support 

[R1200CL]

On 12/24/2021 at 2:14 PM, The Computer Audiophile said:

One thing that probably makes little sense for most users, but I’d love, is an AES output on the motherboard. It would just be cool. 🙂

This is where we probably would like to use a PCI card. With optional own power supply. And clock input. 
Must exist something like this already ?

 

You may add i2s to the wish list as well 😀

[The Computer Audiophile]

15 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

This is where we probably would like to use a PCI card. With optional own power supply. And clock input. 
Must exist something like this already ?

 

You may add i2s to the wish list as well 😀

Yeah, I’ve used Lynx and RME cards with external clock input and AES capability. Cool stuff for sure. 

[bbosler]

19 hours ago, Archimago said:

That is quite well defined and certainly measurable beyond any science we know to have significance for human hearing abilities

Do you seriously think that we can explain everything we sense with electronic measurements?  I use the word "sense" on purpose because we definitely sense vibrations that we don't "hear" in the conventional use of the word. 

 

To be true, your statement means that we have  defined exactly how we hear and that we can precisely measure everything that pertains to it. It implies our knowledge is so far advanced that we understand precisely how the human body senses vibration and exactly how our brain processes this information, and beyond understanding how all of that happens, we have electronic instruments that are capable of precisely measuring everything that pertains to this process... . ..... dream on. 

 

19 hours ago, Archimago said:

To speculate that there's "something else" out there is fine but this cannot really be taken seriously unless there's some hint of what we're talking about. That's like saying "it's possible" that the Boogeyman lives under my bed. As adults I trust there's no need to be concerned, right?

 

No, definitely not.. .. sorry, your analogy is humorous but meaningless.  You imply that science is so far advanced that we not only understand everything, we can also measure  everything .. ... again.. dream on. Much of what we are discovering today was not even conceived of several years ago. I have an electronics and scientific background, but I'm not so delusional to think that mankind has reached the point that there is nothing left to discover or that we even have the vision to know what these things might be. 

 

I know you are deeply involved in using measurements to explain outcomes. I respectfully suggest that your desire to be able to explain everything with measurements has clouded your ability to think beyond what your instruments are capable of measuring or the possibility that you aren't even measuring everything things that matters

 

I also respectfully suggest you head over to Audio Science Review and join the "if I can't measure it you can't hear it" cult (that is an attempt at  sarcastic humor and I hope you take it as such)

 

“Everything that can be invented has been invented.” Charles H. Duell , Commissioner of US patent office. 1889

 

[EdmontonCanuck]

To be fair, not everything we hear *actually* exists. I offer this video clip to help explain.

 

 

[stefano_mbp]

14 minutes ago, EdmontonCanuck said:

To be fair, not everything we hear *actually* exists. I offer this video clip to help explain.

 

 

The reference to the Synesthesia is interesting that is a pathology that affects a variable number of people (1/200 - 1/1000) ... but it is a pathology and therefore cannot be taken for example of "special" perceptions.
... and then on YouTube is everything and the opposite of everything, very far from a scientific foundation ... a kind of foolish encyclopedia ...

[firedog]

1 hour ago, bbosler said:

Do you seriously think that we can explain everything we sense with electronic measurements?  I use the word "sense" on purpose because we definitely sense vibrations that we don't "hear" in the conventional use of the word. 

 

To be true, your statement means that we have  defined exactly how we hear and that we can precisely measure everything that pertains to it. It implies our knowledge is so far advanced that we understand precisely how the human body senses vibration and exactly how our brain processes this information, and beyond understanding how all of that happens, we have electronic instruments that are capable of precisely measuring everything that pertains to this process... . ..... dream on.

 

Your response is irrelevant to Archi's post. Archi and others have measured the output from DACs fed a signal from devices with and without all the various audiophile "noise reducers" and "jitter reducers". The result: basically no difference in the jitter output, distortion, or noise floor of the DAC. 

 

You can claim all sorts of things are going on. But other than fairy tales, please tell us how the DAC output is actually changed by these devices? If jitter doesn't change, frequency response doesn't change, distortion doesn't change, and noise floor doesn't change - then what effect do these devices actually have? Just saying "it's something unknown we can't measure" is a nonsense response. If you want to claim a MB like this or any other audiophile device "does something" - tell us what it does. 

Saying it "reduces noise" is, by itself, a meaningless statement. What's the effect of the "noise reduction"? On what part of the audio is it operating?

 

And of course, evaluations of such products are almost always done with sighted listening comparisons. So they are basically meaningless.

 

And look, in the end, if you want to buy this MB, and "feel" that it actually does something - go right ahead. Just don't make unsubstantiated claims for it. All you can legitimately claim for such a device is that in your system, with your ears, and in a sighted comparison you think it sounds better. No one can say or prove you wrong.

But any broader claim that it actually has some more universal application to SQ for any other listener or that it "really" does something is baseless. 

[bbosler]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

Your response is irrelevant to Archi's post. Archi and others have measured the output from DACs fed a signal from devices with and without all the various audiophile "noise reducers" and "jitter reducers". The result: basically no difference in the jitter output, distortion, or noise floor of the DAC. 

this is the Audio Science Review position. "I see no difference when I measure these 3 things. these 3 things are all that matter,  so therefore these devices are identical." Once again, and then I will drop it since you are not "hearing" what I am saying. You and others have decided what the relevant parameters are and that nothing else matters. The ASR guy has also decided that even though some things do measure differently, these differences are beyond what a human can detect. 

 

1 hour ago, firedog said:

And look, in the end, if you want to buy this MB, and "feel" that it actually does something - go right ahead. Just don't make unsubstantiated claims for it.

I made no claims about this device. Please quit putting words in my mouth

 

 

1 hour ago, firedog said:

You can claim all sorts of things are going on

 

I did no such thing. Again, please quit putting words in my mouth. I said the idea that we completely understand our sense of hearing and that we can definitively measure everything that is relevant is a dream.

 

the end of my story

 

 

[fas42]

What happens with hearing is that it is sensitive to disturbing anomalies. Very sensitive. Once they register in our awareness, they don't disappear - which is why we have little tolerance for a system that may be very expensive, but which is getting some key aspects wrong. And why it is trivially easy most times to pick, sight unseen, whether sound coming from a room say is real, or reproduction by a hifi - the clues are most certainly there, but no-one tries to measure them ...

 

The clues that matter are produced by a system that is not working well enough - measuring for this is not done, 99.9% of the time - and hence no progress in understanding occurs. There is no mystery in any of this; just a bullheaded desire not to go beyond conventional thinking ... QED .

[firedog]

13 hours ago, bbosler said:

this is the Audio Science Review position. "I see no difference when I measure these 3 things. these 3 things are all that matter,  so therefore these devices are identical." Once again, and then I will drop it since you are not "hearing" what I am saying. You and others have decided what the relevant parameters are and that nothing else matters. The ASR guy has also decided that even though some things do measure differently, these differences are beyond what a human can detect. 

I am hearing you. And no, that's not my position. I don't claim there isn't anything else and everything is known and can be measured. I also don't claim the the $200 devices they test at ASR all sound as good as some of the best equipment. (Although I do suspect that lots (noy all) of people who claim to hear the differences actually couldn't under blind conditions).

 

But "differences beyond what a human can detect" have been measured- for the things that we know how to measure. To say that these same vanishingly small measured differences that have actually been shown in listening tests to be undetectable by listeners are somehow magically making a system sound different is simply nonsense.  If you want to make such claims, then it has to be on the basis of some other, as yet unknown or unmeasured type of difference. That's why I said such claims have no basis other than for the individual making them. If you want to claim they have some broader basis, you have to know what they are so they can be evaluated by others - or at least test them in blind listening. If they are only heard in sighted conditions by a certain group of individuals, that means zip in terms of if such a device actually does anything. That's basic logic and science, and doesn't depend on us knowing about any as yet unknown parameters. 

 

If SOtM wants to claim that such a motherboard improves SQ, saying it "reduces noise" is in itself a meaningless claim. It's no different than me saying if I put a small magnet in my hands and wave them a certain way while playing music, it "changes the energy" in the room and the SQ  improves. 

 

Show how it is improving the end result coming out of the DAC or the speakers. And you don't have to measure some mysterious unknown variable. Have it properly tested under blind conditions and show us that listeners can actually hear a difference when this product is installed.

 

If you really have confidence in your product you could do that. With this product it wouldn't be difficult at all. Nor would it be expensive. 

If they could show such an actual difference with listeners, they'd sell more product. So why do you think a company like SOtM never does this?

 

[Ben-M]

😔

Hopefully there's a new thread started about this motherboard or that it joins one of the longer tweaking and feedback threads, then we get some user feedback on it compared to other boards. Even though this one may be no different, it's not the first motherboard anyone has said has or may have an impact on sound quality. So, let's see what real owners and tweakers really say?

 

Throwing my opinion out there, I don't think the material that was in the press release was convincing. It didn't make any specific enough references for me for what to expect, and it doesn't seem to differ enough from an off the shelf board to show itself off as being different. And clock inputs have been normal mods on motherboards for like 6-8 years? And even there, there were preferences for which brand of MBs took to the clock mods better than others. So, I'm just a bit disappointed in what was said/provided at launch. 

 

But, that's welcoming the buying and testing of the board in it's designated use case. Whoever buys it, it's their money, no need to "put on the badge and protect the greater good from audiophile snake oil that keeps new people out of the hobby"...

 

This thread shared a press release, and then a price, while battling 2 cycles of "someone on the internet is 'wrong', I better fix it. 

 

Maybe someone can move it on to a specific thread now? 

 

 

[bbosler]

6 hours ago, firedog said:

If you want to make such claims, then it has to be on the basis of some other, as yet unknown or unmeasured type of difference.

If you want to claim they have some broader basis, you have to know what they are so they can be evaluated by others 

 

which is impossible.. How does one make a claim based on an unknown then say what that unknown is so it can be evaluated? 

 

 

6 hours ago, firedog said:

these same vanishingly small measured differences that have actually been shown in listening tests to be undetectable by listeners

 

6 hours ago, firedog said:

Have it properly tested under blind conditions and show us that listeners can actually hear a difference when this product is installed.

 

 

and so ends the discussion at least from my end... you seem to believe that tests have been designed and carried out that prove what can and cannot be detected . I have no faith that these tests are valid nor does a large % of the audiophile community The blind listening debate is so endless and pointless that some forums have simply banned the subject. I won't go down that rabbit hole. 

 

 

 

 

[fas42]

A motherboard designed to produce less noise in an audio chain is part of a solution. In the same way as a mains filter that audio components plug into, at the wall. Both are a means of improving upon the less than adequate engineering of nearly all audio gear. Yet in the bizarro world of audiophiles, one is a sensible precaution, but the other is money making snake oil ...

 

One day, audio gear won't need all these band-aids - but in the meantime I think it's reasonable to buy and use whatever gets the job done, for the individuals who are fussy about what they hear, .

[Boomboy]

A couple of pics to show where the sclk-ex connects to the board .

[R1200CL]

So the requirement is two separate frequencies. 24 and 25 MHz. And to have these available you have to pay $1000 extra ?

 

https://mitxpc.com/collections/motherboards/LGA-1151#collection-title

[Boomboy]

3 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

So the requirement is two separate frequencies. 24 and 25 MHz. And to have these available you have to pay $1000 extra ?

The way I read it is that the sclk-ex is supplied with 2 outs for the motherboard .

 

[firedog]

18 hours ago, bbosler said:

 

which is impossible.. How does one make a claim based on an unknown then say what that unknown is so it can be evaluated? 

 

 

 

 

 

and so ends the discussion at least from my end... you seem to believe that tests have been designed and carried out that prove what can and cannot be detected . I have no faith that these tests are valid nor does a large % of the audiophile community

 

 

 

 

 

I said, in fact, the opposite. The rabbit hole is your creation.  I said no special tests or measurements are necessary. Just do unsighted comparative listening. Anyone who knows anything about human perception knows that humans are highly influenced by expectation biases. It's been shown to be true for audio perception also. Human nature doesn't suddenly change when a hi-fi system is involved. 

 

"The audiophile community" is in large part a joke. Often like the anti-vaxxers and other science deniers. "We will hold onto our beliefs no matter what, and we will never actually test them, b/c then we might find out we don't have golden ears and can't actually hear all those things we claim to be able to." That's the real reason for most of the resistance. It's more fun to hold on to beliefs than deal with reality. Wouldn't it be terrible if you found out you couldn't hear any difference between a $1000 component and a $5000 one? Or a $5000 one and a $20000 one? 
 

[bobfa]

On 12/24/2021 at 7:14 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

One thing that probably makes little sense for most users, but I’d love, is an AES output on the motherboard. It would just be cool. 🙂

Oh, My, YES, YES.  I am using two Pi4's with Pi2AES hats, and I am delighted with them.  

 

https://www.rme-audio.de/hdspe-aes.html. is also interesting.

[bbosler]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

Just do unsighted comparative listening.

 

5 hours ago, firedog said:

The rabbit hole is your creation.

 

and therein lies the crux of the matter....  "just do" as if it is a simple matter. It is not.

 

unsighted = blind listening which you obviously believe to be valid. I do not.  Many do not. People who believe measurements tell everything like the ASR cult do. As I said,  the debate about blind testing is endless and pointless. It is such  a huge bone of contention that many forums ban even mentioning it. 

 

this is probably one response too many since that is the rabbit hole you are apparently unaware of. We are on the edge of it and  I will not go down it.. .I certainly did not create it .   ........ so ....... good day

 

[firedog]

17 hours ago, bbosler said:

unsighted = blind listening which you obviously believe to be valid. I do not.

 

based on what?

You are aware of the many tests of human perception, including sound/listening perception,  that show expectation bias and results influenced by "sight"? 

So what is a question of "belief" here? 

And please stop grouping me with your prejudicial comments about "the ASR cult".  Your stereotypes about people who "believe measurements tell everything" are neither accurate nor relevant. 

[bbosler]

6 hours ago, firedog said:

So what is a question of "belief" here?

 

as I said

 

23 hours ago, bbosler said:

the debate about blind testing is endless and pointless. 

 

Answering your question will continue yet another endless, pointless debate. If you care to look into it you will find a multitude of them Here are a few links to get you started although it is by no means exhaustive. . enjoy.. 

 

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/#:~:text=Blind tests mean the listener does not know,image%2C product reputation is hidden from the listener

 

https://www.stereophile.com/features/113/index.html

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/blind-listening-letters

 

https://www.pooraudiophile.com/2014/08/blind-audio-testing.html

 

 

[firedog]

1 hour ago, bbosler said:

 

as I said

 

 

Answering your question will continue yet another endless, pointless debate. If you care to look into it you will find a multitude of them Here are a few links to get you started although it is by no means exhaustive. . enjoy.. 

 

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/#:~:text=Blind tests mean the listener does not know,image%2C product reputation is hidden from the listener

 

https://www.stereophile.com/features/113/index.html

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/blind-listening-letters

 

https://www.pooraudiophile.com/2014/08/blind-audio-testing.html

 

 

Thanks. Your articles acutally back up my point, and not yours. I suggest your read them again.

 

In unsighted listening, many listeners can't hear differences between components. That's exactly what I said. I didn't say there were no differences or that no listeners can hear them.

 

In sighted listening audiophiles almost always describe dramatic differences and "veils being lifted". In unsighted listening, most of those same audiophiles can't hear those supposedly dramatic differences. The reason is that the differences either aren't actually there, or if they are, they are often small, and not as dramatic as described. The majority of listeners, even audiophiles, can't hear them. If you find out you can't hear the difference between 2 components, why by the more expensive one, other things being equal?

 

Most audiophiles are afraid to test themselves, b/c they are afraid to find out they don't have "golden ears". It's very satisying to think you are a member of some especially talented listening group, even if you aren't in actuality.

 

The same thing would probably happen with the MB described here if people compared it unsighted. 

 

There are (or at least used to be) listening skills tests and courses online. Most audiophiles fail them. It takes a lot of time and work for people to pass them, and many never do. They can't actually hear many of those things they claim to hear. They are just imagining them. That's fine if they just want to enjoy their components. The problem is when they assume and tell others that they should "upgrade to X" because it "reduces noise" and will improve what they hear. The likelihood is that it actually won't. 

[bbosler]

11 hours ago, firedog said:

Thanks. Your articles acutally back up my point, and not yours. I suggest your read them again.

 

My point for the links was simply that their is a lot of debate about the topic which will never be resolved ... my links clearly show that.... which is obvious if you had actually read them. The first link is a forum thread with 990 pages and  about 15,000 posts. You responded in about an hour that it backs up your point,  but no way you read it. If you had you would have  read there is passion on both sides. The second is in part Atkinson saying he has been fooled by these tests. You can read the others if you care to.

 

BUT, that was not my initial point, which was  "Just because we have some measurements doesn't mean we are measuring everything that is relevant." You then started down the blind listening rabbit hole and here we are, which pretty much proves my point that it is a rabbit hole.

 

I do agree with the poster who said another thread should be started that consists of actually reporting results of it in use. That seems to me more useful than just speculating like you are that it will not have any effect. As a serial poster I'm sure you have another tact to take so have at it. 11,000 posts in 12 years  is an impressive feat, my 300 in 3 pales in comparison. 

 

11 hours ago, firedog said:

The same thing would probably happen with the MB described here if people compared it unsighted. 

 

 

On 12/25/2021 at 11:59 AM, firedog said:

any broader claim that it actually has some more universal application to SQ for any other listener or that it "really" does something is baseless. 

 

[extracampine]

Interesting to see a motherboard coming from SOtM. Their focus had previously been on separating the source component/PC (e.g. a Roon Rock) and the "endpoint" - e.g. using an SOtM SMS-200. As these two components have quite different requirements, there seems to be some sense in this - and this appears to have been the prevailing approach in the audiophile community. Having the source and endpoint separated by ethernet cable seems to negate the need for an "audiophile" motherboard in the source PC. Or am I missing something? If you just had one machine which acted as both source and endpoint (e.g. a CAPS), then maybe there might be some use in it....