A Confused streaming system - Mutec / SOtM Ultra

[David A]

I run Roon AIR straight from my Antipodes server to the Devialet, no intermediary devices doing signal processing, and one thing I've found that echoes your findings to some degree is that settings do make a difference and reducing processing tasks or processor activity wherever possible always seems to produce a benefit. For example Roon offers me several signal path options in its audio settings menu and disabling every one of those options other than the one in use seems to produce a slight benefit. Likewise disabling volume control in Roon seems to produce a small benefit for me. Somewhere I have an option to disable the optical and coax outputs in the Antipodes and doing that results in a slight benefit. None of these benefits on their own is a big deal and if it comes to the choice of enabling or disabling a single setting there's little in it, I could easily run either way, but when i start to add slight benefits together the improvement seems to compound and become greater than what I'd expect from a simple summing of the benefits.

With the Devialet running a config with just the ethernet input enabled, the only input I'm using, seems to sound better than running factory config with all inputs enabled and selecting the ethernet input. I wonder if there's a slight reduction in processing in the Devialet when you disable unused inputs, and that makes me wonder if being able to disable the unused streaming inputs that show when you use the iOS remote app would also be beneficial but so far we have no way of doing that.

The gear we choose to put in our signal path is obviously important and we all make different choices about that but really digging into settings and disabling everything I can do without so that the gear in the chain is working as simply as possible to deliver the result I want seems to be just as important and while individual setting changes may seem insignificant or not worth bothering about, a number of those individual changes added together can become noticeably more significant.

Your experience with having HQ player upsample to 176.4 and then have the SOtM/Mutec upsample to 192 reminds me of my experience with video back when Blu-ray was first introduced. I had a 768i LCD TV and I had the choice of letting my Oppo player upscale SD output to 720p or 1080p and then letting the TV finish the scaling to 768i or having the player output 576i (Australia uses the PAL system) and letting the TV do the scaling to 768i. Having the player output 576i and letting the TV do the upscaling in a single step was definitely better than having the player do an initial upscale and then having the TV do a second scaling process. I'm not surprised that you find doing all of the upsampling in a single operation better than doing it in 2 steps in different places.

[Confused]

Checking back on this thread I was a little surprised that I have not posted anything here for a whole month.  Maybe I've stopped tinkering with the system and have actually been using it for listening to music?  Well, yes and no.  I have been using my system for it's intended purpose, but when away from my system plans of tinkering have continued.

The first is a cable.  I am not a great believer in buying very expensive cables, I tend to buy decent quality reasonably priced cables, happy with the thought that expensive cable money is more effectively spent somewhere else.  But here I am buying a Euro 700 Habst clock cable.  There is some logic here.  The Mutec REF10 produces a 10MHz square wave feed, something that can easily be degraded by the cable and be subject to interference.  It is generally reckoned that the better the cable and the shorter the cable, the better the result.  Indeed, those that state for good objective reasons that something like the REF10 is a waste of time site the cable as the reason they are a bad idea, much better to have s decent clock installed directly on the device it is clocking, so installed in the DAC, not connected to the DAC via 1m of cable.  So if you are going to run an external clock, make sure the cable is good and short.  The other reason the Habst cable is interesting is that it was Mutec's choice to use for their demonstration of the REF10 with the MC3+USB at Munich, which is exactly the use I have for the cable.  Furthermore, there have been very positive user reports on CA, with some stating that adding the Habst offered a similar increase in performance as adding the REF10 itself.  Anyway, a while back one of the guys on CA organised a 'group buy' discount for the Habst clock cable.  At the time, I decided that I was not going spend yet more cash on a cable, but after one weekend of tinkering with HQPlayer settings (see post #220) I felt much happier with the direction I was going and just thought why not?  A few emails to Habst followed, and the cable was ordered and paid for, so no turning back, it should be delivered in a couple of weeks.  Time will tell if I feel I get the improvements others have observed.

The other thing that has happened is SOtM's announcement of the "Neo" upgrade for the sMS-200Ultra.  According to SOtM this has "deeper mid-range and better bass expressions" compared to the original, which apparently "presents bright sound compared to the Neo version".  To be honest, I am not one to take much notice of manufacturers comments regarding listening impressions, I would much rather listen for myself, or at least to the reports of a few users.  Manufacturers comments are to be taken with a pinch of salt, as they say.  

However, in this specific case I was intrigued because as I have reported in this thread, I have found the sMS-200Ultra to sound bright and a little thin versus both AIR and my old microRendu.  In fact, the words in SOtM's press release are almost exactly in line with what I think is wrong with the sMS-200Ultra and how I would hope a new model would be different.  Possibly wishful thinking that the Neo version will make me love the sMS-200Ultra, but I am intrigued enough to want to try it for myself.  Or to put it another way, I have never been happy with the sMS-200Ultra, in some respects it is a mighty fine performer, but the thing has been bugging me from the day I installed it, so to send it away for the Neo upgrade is basically a "nothing to lose" move for me.

So today the I packed up the sMS200Ultra to go back to Korea for the upgrade, I have also sent back my tX-USBultra.  I have been in correspondence with May Park at SOtM regarding the Neo and some other matters and have come to a deal to get the Neo upgrade and both units fitted with a shorter internal 75 ohm clock cable.  This is the cable that runs from the external BNC connector to the board, and in many units SOtM had used an overlength cable that is coiled in the unit, so suboptimal implementation you could say.  Who knows how much difference this will make, if any, but a shorter cable can do no harm, so it made sense to me to get all this done at the same time as sending back to Korea for the Neo work.

So I have a Habst cable coming my way, and the SOtM kit is heading back home.  Meanwhile, I have just reinstalled the microRendu, which is running through the MC3+USB/REF10.  This has been installed for about two hours today and has been playing background music from a playlist I have, about 10 minutes into the playlist I found myself at the Devialet tuning SAM down, SAM has been set unchanged at 80% for the last month without issue, 10 minutes with the mR and I hit a track where the bass was a bit overwhelming.  Maybe there is something in that press release?

I am actually really looking forward to the next two or three weeks, simply living with the system with the SOtM kit away and the mR back in play.  It will be very interesting to see how I find the system with the mR back after months of living with the SOtM kit.  As to how the Neo will turn out, just like the Habst cable, time will tell.

[baconbrain]

However, in this specific case I was intrigued because as I have reported in this thread, I have found the sMS-200Ultra to sound bright and a little thin versus both AIR and my old microRendu.  In fact, the words in SOtM's press release are almost exactly in line with what I think is wrong with the sMS-200Ultra and how I would hope a new model would be different.  Possibly wishful thinking that the Neo version will make me love the sMS-200Ultra, but I am intrigued enough to want to try it for myself.  Or to put it another way, I have never been happy with the sMS-200Ultra, in some respects it is a mighty fine performer, but the thing has been bugging me from the day I installed it, so to send it away for the Neo upgrade is basically a "nothing to lose" move for me.

Hi Confused,

Strangely enough it was the „brightness“ of the Ultra compared to the mR which actually compelled me to sell it. Looking back I also kind of miss the old mR / Mutec combination. Curious to hear your impressions once the Ultra is back ...

[Confused]

Picking up on @baconbrain 's comment above, I have to say that I quite enjoyed my weekend with the mR back in the system.  As a broad conclusion, I would say that the SOtM kit is better, but the mR is the one I prefer in my system.  There is a lot of comment on CA at the moment regarding the sMS-200 "Neo", ranging from those that think the original is too bright and the Neo will definitely be better, to one person who seams a little upset that SOtM are sacrificing transparency and a natural rendition for a deliberately warmer sounding product.  That's quite a range of views considering that nobody outside of SOtM has listened to one yet.  For me, the sMS-200Ultra sounded a little bright compared to almost anything I could run through the Devialet, the mR, AIR, Blu-ray player, and so on.  So I like one person's theory that SOtM found something slightly amiss with the sMS-200 and they are covering this up with the Neo "upgrade".  Anyway, all pure speculation, but a bit of fun nevertheless, and it looks like the first user reports of the Neo are immanent.  I am certainly looking forward to trying the Neo myself, although I do have a degree of trepidation that it might not settle with my system or ears, which is quite possible and would be a disappointment.

I have to say that I enjoyed listening to my system with the mR this weekend.  The difference with the tonal balance is small, but somehow it is enough to tip things from sounding not quite right to just right, it is just plain easier with the mR to stop fretting about the system and simply enjoy the music.  So a small difference tonally that happens to have a huge impact in my system.  Some clarity and dynamics are lost with the SOtM kit gone, but it is the mR I would rather listen to.  ( which begs the question as to how would an ultraRendu perform?)

My plan this weekend was to simply enjoy the system with the mR in place, no point tinkering with what is effectively and "interim" set-up.  This nearly worked.  I was listening on Sunday, looking at the hifi rack I could see the LPS-1 powered mR and next to it the sPS-500 power supply, which currently has noting to do.  This sowed the seed in my head, how would the mR sound powered by the sPS-500?  I could not resist, and it was an easy enough thing to try, just set the sPS-500 to 7v and swap the cables over.  So I gave this a try and listened to the mR with sPS-500 power for maybe half an hour.  My conclusion, the mR sounds a little bit smoother and more natural with the LPS-1.  This reminds me of some earlier comments from Zoltan (@zdenes ) who suggested that the Paul Hynes SR4 would be beneficial in reducing the HF glare from the sMS-200Ultra.  Judging by what I heard comparing the sPS-500 with the LPS-1 on the mR, I think this could be correct.   The SR4 is considered a step up from the new LPS-1.2, so definitely better than my old LPS-1.

One thing I forget to mention in my earlier post is that I have also ordered a new lid for my turntable, which is apparently due for delivery in August.  The cover for the Pro-Ject Signature 12 turntable is a new product, something Pro-Ject promised a long time ago but it has taken them a very long time to deliver.  (sound familiar?)  OK - This may not sound very exciting, but the new cover will allow me to relocate the TT from the very tall rack I have in the corner of my room (behind the right hand speaker) and use a much lower rack to the side.  I know the rack's current location is not the best from an SQ point of view, plus it will free up the corner so I can add room treatments in each corner, which is not possible now.  I think there are a few things I can do with the room itself, but sorting out my sub-optimally positioned rack is definitely where I want to start.

[Confused]

On Friday my Habst 75 ohm BNC cable arrived.  If I am honest I am not a great believer in spending vast sums of cash on cables, I tend to think the money is better spent elsewhere.  So I dithered with respect to getting a Habst cable, after all, it is not far off the same cost as the Mutec MC3+USB that I would connect it to.  Anyway, in a moment of weakness I ordered the Habst, it arrived Friday, and yesterday I installed it between my Mutec REF10 and Mutec MC3+USB.  The cable it replaces is a Pasternack RG216 cable.  The Pasternack cable is the specification that Mutec recommend in the REF10 manual (RG216), it is also respectably short at 600mm.  So for these reasons I was pretty confident that the Pasternack cable was allowing. things to perform somewhere near to the optimum level.  My plan was to set up the Habst, and then maybe do a back to back test with the Pasternack cable next week, to see if I could discern a difference.  

I left the system running for a couple of hours so everything could settle in, and I sat down for a listen with some familiar tracks.  To be honest, I was pretty staggered by what I was hearing.  I recall someone posting a while ago that adding the Habst cable was not far off the same hike in performance that you get from adding the REF10 itself.  I felt that this was probably a slight exaggeration, but had taken it as an indicator that the Habst might afford some improvement.  The thing is, to me the Habst has probably delivered more than this, it is like I am only now discovering what the REF10 can add to the system.  The things that lept out at me at first were mostly bass related, the bass was more dynamic, powerful and had gained some real punch.  Better defined too, with drums sounding more realistic.  This is an area that I think my system is good at anyway, so to get an obvious improvement here is tremendous.  In fact, it is dynamics everywhere, everything sounded more alive, real and exciting.  The improvements were throughout the range, percussion instruments sounding more alive, real and engaging.   All this from a clock cable.  What I can say is that I have gone from thinking the Habst was a bit of a nice to have luxury item, to thinking that this is the best 800 Euros I have spent on my system for a while.  So for me, going from Habst to Pasternack is maybe a bigger hike that adding the REF10 with the Pasternack.  Quite remarkable.

Digressing a bit, I can say that yesterday my system sounded as good as I have ever heard it.  Perhaps more importantly, it was more enjoyable to than it has been for a while.  So flicking through some demo tracks, sometimes I might listen to a minute or so of one track, then skip to the next.  Not this time, I was enjoying things so much I just kept listening and whole tracks were played, I then started listening to whatever took my fancy, this was good stuff.  My set-up at the moment is PC, Roon HQPlayer (Upsampling  to 24/192), microRendu, Mutec MC3+USB/REF10, AES/EBU to Devialet.

The SOtM bundle somewhere between the UK and Korea at the moment for Neo upgrade and clock cable replacement.  I never did really gell with the SOtM kit, it was highly impressive in many respects, details, dynamics, but somehow it messed up the tonal balance of my system, so it was better, but less enjoyable to listen to.  The mR is clearly inferior to the SOtM bundle, but somehow it sounds just right, and adding the REF10 and Habst to the mix has taken "just right" to a whole new level.  In fact, it is not really a spaghetti system anymore, just the mR feeding bits to a REF10 referenced MC3+USB, so quite a simple set up really, and to me it really seems to work well.  We tend to discuss component A sounding better than B, but sometimes system synergy matters too, and somehow the mR works in my system where the SOtM kit did not.

There is a bit of a story to the SOtM kit as well.  I had agreed with SOtM that I would send back the sMS-200Ultra for Neo upgrade, and send back my tX-USBultra too, such that I could have shorter internal clock cables fitted.  Three weeks ago I took the parcel to my local Post Office, together with another package to send to my brother in Canada.  Both were sent by UK Parcel Force.  For the SOtM kit, I requested the cheapest service with tracking.  The person on the counter gave me my receipt and even circled the reference number for the tracking.  A few days later, I checked the tracking, and the website advised: "this is not a tracked service".  Oh dear!  The parcel to my brother took one day short of three weeks to arrive, much longer than it should have taken.  The SOtM kit has not arrived yet.  If you take the absolute longest transit time in working days and allow for a week in customs, in theory, it is not actually late, not yet.  If it does not arrive next week I think I will be seriously worried that it has gone missing.  Ironically, even with the SOtM kit missing in action, my system has never sounded better or more enjoyable, I am absolutely loving it at the moment.  Maybe fate is sending me a message!  

I other news, Oxford Audio called me last week to advise that the cover for my turntable has finally arrived.  I shall visit Oxford next weekend to collect.  Not the most exciting thing, a lid for a TT, but it will allow me to get rid of the very tall rack in the corner of my room, which upsets the right-hand speaker a little.  (as picked up by Thierry's analysis of my REW files)  This will also allow for the addition of bass traps in the room corners behind the speakers  So if all goes to plan, the TT lid might offer very real hike in sound quality, for all the right reasons.

[ogs]

@Confused Your microRendu is 1.3? I guess it is too late to get it up to 1.4... When I upgraded I noticed no change in tonal character, just more detail. Mine is powered by the LPS-1. The LPS-1.2 is tempting, but there are other contenders too. I haven't changed the PS of my Mutec yet so possibly an adjustable PS with more than two rails.

[Confused]

@Confused  Your microRendu is 1.3? I guess it is too late to get it up to 1.4... When I upgraded I noticed no change in tonal character, just more detail. Mine is powered by the LPS-1. The LPS-1.2 is tempting, but there are other contenders too. I haven't changed the PS of my Mutec yet so possibly an adjustable PS with more than two rails.

Yes, I have the original microRendu, not the 1.4.  Oddly enough, the UK distributer for Sonore has one last V1.4 board left, I am almost tempted, but not quite.  It is £250, which is not far off the a third of the cost of an ultraRendu, so selling the mR and going ultraRendu would make more sense.  Of course, I might end up trying the ultraRendu one day and finding that I don't like it either!  It is so much better if you can try kit before you buy it.  I have an idea that I might buy an ultraRendu when they start turning up second hand at reasonable prices, then if I do not like it I can sell for roughly the buying price.  Maybe the microRendu 1.4 is my perfect device?  We will never know.

It has been an interesting couple of weeks, the SOtM kit is away and I have not really been missing what it does for my system.  The system has definitely lost some detail and dynamics, but the trade-off is worth it for the shift in tonal balance, which just suits me so much better and makes everything so much more listenable.  Then this weekend, adding the Habst cable, and dynamics are now even better than with the SOtM kit in place.

The good news is that I received an email from SOtM this morning, my parcel with the sMS-200Ultra and tX-USBulta arrived today.  This was a big relief, the parcel has taken three weeks and three days to get to SOtM, so I was staring to get worried it might be lost in transit.

So the short term plan is to enjoy the mR driven system, and wait for the Neo'd sMS-200Ultra to arrive.  I have only seen one user report for the Neo so far, but encouragingly this was a very positive report.  Of course, there is nothing like hearing for yourself in your own system, so I will need to wait for mine to turn up.  Having enjoyed listening to my system so much this last weekend though, I have never been in less of a rush for some new kit to arrive!

[sam1000]

I was afraid you were going to report positive experience with Habst :-)
Hypothetically, if AIR is 80, Mutec with Pasternack is 85-87, where would you place Mutec with Habst?

[Confused]

I was afraid you were going to report positive experience with Habst :-)
Hypothetically, if AIR is 80, Mutec with Pasternack is 85-87, where would you place Mutec with Habst?

Aha!  The dreaded out of 100 scale!  Always tricky when you think you have found perfection, get near to 100, and then find a big improvement.

That said, I have actually been wondering myself where the Habst puts things versus AIR.  Last weekend I did not do a direct A/B switch comparison with AIR, it was a simple case of install the Habst and have a listen.  It was a good listen though, the big thing was bass power and overall dynamics, a genuine step up.  Also, I think with the SOtM kit out of the way and the mR in play, a comparison to AIR becomes easier, because AIR and the mR sound tonally similar, whereas the SOtM kit irritated me in some areas, perhaps masking it's capabilities elsewhere.

So to answer your question as best I can, I think I will do another AIR versus Mutec MC3+USB/REF10 comparison.  With such a comparison you can actually play two zones in Roon and directly switch from one to the other via iPad, sat in the listening position, which makes for a good test.  It would be very interesting to repeat this test with the Habst in place.  Last time I tried this the SOtM / Mutec kit was best, but not by much.  Will the difference with the Habst in place be easier to discern?  I will give this a try at the weekend and report back, I am interested myself how this one might turn out!

[zzzap]

On Friday my Habst 75 ohm BNC cable arrived.  If I am honest I am not a great believer in spending vast sums of cash on cables, I tend to think the money is better spent elsewhere.  So I dithered with respect to getting a Habst cable, after all, it is not far off the same cost as the Mutec MC3+USB that I would connect it to.  Anyway, in a moment of weakness I ordered the Habst, it arrived Friday, and yesterday I installed it between my Mutec REF10 and Mutec MC3+USB.  The cable it replaces is a Pasternack RG216 cable.  The Pasternack cable is the specification that Mutec recommend in the REF10 manual (RG216), it is also respectably short at 600mm.  So for these reasons I was pretty confident that the Pasternack cable was allowing. things to perform somewhere near to the optimum level.  My plan was to set up the Habst, and then maybe do a back to back test with the Pasternack cable next week, to see if I could discern a difference.  

I left the system running for a couple of hours so everything could settle in, and I sat down for a listen with some familiar tracks.  To be honest, I was pretty staggered by what I was hearing.  I recall someone posting a while ago that adding the Habst cable was not far off the same hike in performance that you get from adding the REF10 itself.  I felt that this was probably a slight exaggeration, but had taken it as an indicator that the Habst might afford some improvement.  The thing is, to me the Habst has probably delivered more than this, it is like I am only now discovering what the REF10 can add to the system.  The things that lept out at me at first were mostly bass related, the bass was more dynamic, powerful and had gained some real punch.  Better defined too, with drums sounding more realistic.  This is an area that I think my system is good at anyway, so to get an obvious improvement here is tremendous.  In fact, it is dynamics everywhere, everything sounded more alive, real and exciting.  The improvements were throughout the range, percussion instruments sounding more alive, real and engaging.   All this from a clock cable.  What I can say is that I have gone from thinking the Habst was a bit of a nice to have luxury item, to thinking that this is the best 800 Euros I have spent on my system for a while.  So for me, going from Habst to Pasternack is maybe a bigger hike that adding the REF10 with the Pasternack.  Quite remarkable.

Digressing a bit, I can say that yesterday my system sounded as good as I have ever heard it.  Perhaps more importantly, it was more enjoyable to than it has been for a while.  So flicking through some demo tracks, sometimes I might listen to a minute or so of one track, then skip to the next.  Not this time, I was enjoying things so much I just kept listening and whole tracks were played, I then started listening to whatever took my fancy, this was good stuff.  My set-up at the moment is PC, Roon HQPlayer (Upsampling  to 24/192), microRendu, Mutec MC3+USB/REF10, AES/EBU to Devialet.

The SOtM bundle somewhere between the UK and Korea at the moment for Neo upgrade and clock cable replacement.  I never did really gell with the SOtM kit, it was highly impressive in many respects, details, dynamics, but somehow it messed up the tonal balance of my system, so it was better, but less enjoyable to listen to.  The mR is clearly inferior to the SOtM bundle, but somehow it sounds just right, and adding the REF10 and Habst to the mix has taken "just right" to a whole new level.  In fact, it is not really a spaghetti system anymore, just the mR feeding bits to a REF10 referenced MC3+USB, so quite a simple set up really, and to me it really seems to work well.  We tend to discuss component A sounding better than B, but sometimes system synergy matters too, and somehow the mR works in my system where the SOtM kit did not.

There is a bit of a story to the SOtM kit as well.  I had agreed with SOtM that I would send back the sMS-200Ultra for Neo upgrade, and send back my tX-USBultra too, such that I could have shorter internal clock cables fitted.  Three weeks ago I took the parcel to my local Post Office, together with another package to send to my brother in Canada.  Both were sent by UK Parcel Force.  For the SOtM kit, I requested the cheapest service with tracking.  The person on the counter gave me my receipt and even circled the reference number for the tracking.  A few days later, I checked the tracking, and the website advised: "this is not a tracked service".  Oh dear!  The parcel to my brother took one day short of three weeks to arrive, much longer than it should have taken.  The SOtM kit has not arrived yet.  If you take the absolute longest transit time in working days and allow for a week in customs, in theory, it is not actually late, not yet.  If it does not arrive next week I think I will be seriously worried that it has gone missing.  Ironically, even with the SOtM kit missing in action, my system has never sounded better or more enjoyable, I am absolutely loving it at the moment.  Maybe fate is sending me a message!  

I other news, Oxford Audio called me last week to advise that the cover for my turntable has finally arrived.  I shall visit Oxford next weekend to collect.  Not the most exciting thing, a lid for a TT, but it will allow me to get rid of the very tall rack in the corner of my room, which upsets the right-hand speaker a little.  (as picked up by Thierry's analysis of my REW files)  This will also allow for the addition of bass traps in the room corners behind the speakers  So if all goes to plan, the TT lid might offer very real hike in sound quality, for all the right reasons.

Thanks Confused, there goes my 889,-€ for Habst!