A Confused streaming system - Mutec / SOtM Ultra

[hardcore]

So a big surprise.  I guess I have never been 100% convinced by the SOtM kit, but I did not expect my "£200 off eBay" universal device to edge it out.  Maybe something to do with taking the PC and network out of the chain, and instead using a simple bit of audio circuitry to send a digital file to the MC3+USB?  Maybe a result of taking USB out of the chain altogether?

I use a complex USB chain as well and have been tweaking it over the last few years. Uptone USB and ISO Regen, Singxer SU-6 USB-AES converter, ifi iDefender, supercapacitors, linear PSUs, etc.

I've found that the Devialet, and digital equipment in general, is very sensitive to small changes to the way power cords, power supplies, and therefore how the ground is connected.

What I try to achieve is: maximum isolation from the PC source (iDefender for ground isolation, Uptone supercapacitors, ISO Regen). Sufficient isolation brings out more air and detail and better soundstage.

But there is a balance - there still needs to be at least one path to ground - if there is no ground, then the USB signal sometimes cuts out. Sound quality wise, if there is no ground, I find that it loses some sparkle on the high end.

I think the key is to have isolation to break any ground loops (avoid multiple paths to ground that are connected but not isolated), but still having sufficient clean ground connection on the isolated 'legs' of the circuit.

The changes in detail and soundstage by changes in ground and power configuration, can be very significant.

Maybe when you tested a different device with a simplified number of connections between devices and power, the changes in these connections could be what is affecting the sound more than the quality of the device itself.

[Johnnydev]

So a big surprise.  I guess I have never been 100% convinced by the SOtM kit, but I did not expect my "£200 off eBay" universal device to edge it out.  Maybe something to do with taking the PC and network out of the chain, and instead using a simple bit of audio circuitry to send a digital file to the MC3+USB?  Maybe a result of taking USB out of the chain altogether?

I use a complex USB chain as well and have been tweaking it over the last few years. Uptone USB and ISO Regen, Singxer SU-6 USB-AES converter, ifi iDefender, supercapacitors, linear PSUs, etc.

I've found that the Devialet, and digital equipment in general, is very sensitive to small changes to the way power cords, power supplies, and therefore how the ground is connected.

What I try to achieve is: maximum isolation from the PC source (iDefender for ground isolation, Uptone supercapacitors, ISO Regen). Sufficient isolation brings out more air and detail and better soundstage.

But there is a balance - there still needs to be at least one path to ground - if there is no ground, then the USB signal sometimes cuts out. Sound quality wise, if there is no ground, I find that it loses some sparkle on the high end.

I think the key is to have isolation to break any ground loops (avoid multiple paths to ground that are connected but not isolated), but still having sufficient clean ground connection on the isolated 'legs' of the circuit.

The changes in detail and soundstage by changes in ground and power configuration, can be very significant.

Maybe when you tested a different device with a simplified number of connections between devices and power, the changes in these connections could be what is affecting the sound more than the quality of the device itself.

+1 and don’t forget the switch.

[Confused]

As mentioned in previous posts, I now have a whole list of things to try in my seemingly never efforts to optimise my system.  First to say it is just that now, optimising.  This time last year I was not happy with certain aspects of how the system sounded, now I am, so from here it is the simple but seemingly never ending quest to find just that little bit more performance.

Anyway, in previous posts I had mentioned that the Arcam Blu-ray player actually outperformed the SOtM kit when performing the relatively simple task of playing music from a USB drive.  In my rack I still have my old Musical Fidelity CD player, and it would help if this was now removed from the system.  I think lowing the height of this rack and hence the height of my turntable would have a small benefit to room acoustics, with the rack and TT being to one side of the listening position.  However, I still occasionally use the Musical Fidelity CD player, maybe playing a borrowed CD or a quick play of a new CD before it has been ripped, this kind of thing.  It is a secondary use of the system, but it gave rise to the question of how would a relatively new Arcam Blu-ray player perform in comparison to a now almost 20 years old dedicated CD player?  Although I had got good results with the Arcam from a USB drive, I had never tried it in an A/B test as a disc spinner.  I knew I would have a couple of quiet hours this morning, so I thought I would give this a try.  In preparation, I had made a short playlist, which I had burnt to two identical CD-R discs.  Both players were powered up and left running for a couple of hours to ensure any clocks etc. were warmed up and stable.  I wanted to compare both as devices to feed the MC3+USB/REF10, so I could not do direct A/B swaps via input.  This was a case of setting up both players so I had easy access to the back of the units, running the same music on both, and simply swapping the S/PDIF cable to make the switch.  Not ideal, but doable.

The conclusion was that even as a disc spinner, the Arcam was the better sounding of the two.  Not a massive difference, my ancient Musical Fidelity player could still hold it's own, but the Arcam was the better of the two.  A simple test with a clear conclusion.

With this done, I tried the Arcam via USB again, and I would say this remains the best of the lot.  So although the Arcam can beat an old Musical Fidelity as a disc spinner, the Arcam cannot beat itself running from a USB drive.

I think I was in the right kind of mood for experimenting this morning, so I then tried the Arcam direct to the Devialet, rather than through the MC3+USB/REF10.  It still sounded pretty decent, but it was pretty clear that the Arcam playing via USB / Mutec MC3+USB / REF10 remains the best of the lot. 

So that's one thing crossed of the audio "to do" list, many more to go.  Back to the music now..... 

[baconbrain]

Which connection are you using between the Arcam and the Mutec?

[Confused]

Which connection are you using between the Arcam and the Mutec?

S/PDIF, using a most splendid Atlas Mavros RCA to BNC cable.  I am not really one for expensive cables, but I bought this one secondhand from a very knowledgeable and highly respected forum member.  

Maybe it is the key to the Arcam’s excellent performance? 

[baconbrain]

Which connection are you using between the Arcam and the Mutec?

S/PDIF, using a most splendid Atlas Mavros RCA to BNC cable.  I am not really one for expensive cables, but I bought this one secondhand from a very knowledgeable and highly respected forum member.  

Maybe it is the key to the Arcam’s excellent performance? 

Now we know the reason!

Strangely enough that same cable was in the equation when I had my reality check with my 103.

[Confused]

I had some quiet time with my system this weekend, so I thought I would try reinstalling my SOtM modified Ethernet switch.  (With Uptone LPS-1 power)  I got it set up and running last night, and this morning tried some direct comparisons with the Arcam again. 

Long term members of this forum with very good memories might recall that I have a bit of history with Ethernet switches.  A while ago I bought an AQVOX audiophile switch, and after much A/B testing versus a standard switch, I concluded that it did not offer any improvement and I sent it back for refund.  My SOtM switch is not the all conquering sNH-10G, but a far more modest D-Link switch, modified by SOtM to accept a reference clock signal.  Modest maybe, but there was a time when the ultra tinkerers on Computer Audiophile were raving about this switch.  For me, I had removed the SOtM switch from my system after changing my rack layout, I needed the extra ports offered by the 8 port TP-Link switch (the SOtM switch is 6 port), and this also saved a bit of hassle that I had with the layout of the kit by losing the extra clock cable.  Following on from my AQVOX experience, I was not that bothered if it was installed or not.

However, now I can direct A/B switch to the Arcam as a reference, I though it was worth giving another try.  So to listening.  This was actually very interesting, whereas before I could switch between the Arcam and the SOtM kit with very little difference but maybe a slight nod to the Arcam, with the SOtM modified switch in place it seamed to be more track dependant.  With the SOtM kit there was now a far better ambience to the sound, more coherent sound staging, this was a positive.  But on the flip side, the SOtM kit seamed just a tiny fraction harsher in the highs, not by much, but there was something niggling me.  No longer was there preference for the Arcam over the SOtM kit, now it was track dependant.  I then had an idea.  With the 6 port SOtM switch in the system, I needed to run an Ethernet cable to the 8 port TP-Link in order to have enough outlets for the AV and other hifi kit.  The signal path was router to SOtM switch, to sMS-200Ultra, with an ethernet cable to the from the SOtM switch to the TP-Link switch for the other kit.  As an experiment, I changed this to router to TP-Link switch, to SOtM switch, to sMS200Ultra, basically running two ethernet switches in series.  I just did this on a hunch, but I am glad that I did, no more was the preference between the Arcam and the SOtM kit track dependant, but the whole sound was now far nicer and more coherent, with the niggling harshness gone, and this for just adding a cheap and cheerful TP-Link back in the chain.  Not the result I was expecting, quite baffling in fact.  I am now wondering if the TP-Link switch just happens to be good for noise isolation, hence explaining why I could not find much difference between it and the AQVOX switch.  Then add the SOtM switch in the chain, I get the goodness that the CA tweakers were picking up in the past.  Just a theory, from a technical perspective none of this stuff makes an awful lot of sense!  Although surprising, this is an extremely pleasing result, I shall be leaving the system like this for a while, and see how I find things over time.

I think I have gone from being a little sceptical about the benefit of switches to being rather more intrigued about the possibilities.  I wonder what that EtherRegen might bring to the party?

[baconbrain]

Sometimes it is pleasantly surprising what improvements this type of tinkering can achieve. I would assume that there must be some current leakage between the source and the 1st switch which the second then manages to reduce / remove before passing it on to your end point.

The EtherRegen certainly sound promising and will more than likey (in theory) have similar (or better) results. The only thing I don't like about the EtherRegen is the limited number of ports, and my past experiences with the companies' frequent releases of improved products for ones which have been on the market only for a fairly short period of time. Kind of like the salami tactic for Blu-Rays. i.e. you buy the Standard Edition Set and 4 weeks later they release an Extended Version ...

Btw., I am pretty happy with my sNH-10G (just mentioning)

[GuillaumeB]

I think I have gone from being a little sceptical about the benefit of switches to being rather more intrigued about the possibilities.  I wonder what that EtherRegen might bring to the party?

Better late than never LOL   

For me one of the biggest jumps in performance happens when you connect a master clock to the switch. Are you able to try this?

Guillaume

[Confused]

I think I have gone from being a little sceptical about the benefit of switches to being rather more intrigued about the possibilities.  I wonder what that EtherRegen might bring to the party?

Better late than never LOL   

For me one of the biggest jumps in performance happens when you connect a master clock to the switch. Are you able to try this?

Guillaume

Essentially, I was using a "master clock" on the switch, but this probably deserves some explanation. 

The SOtM "bundle" that I bought included a custom version of the sMS200ultra.  This includes a connector for an external 10MHz reference clock, and an additional connector running from the Ultra's internal sCLK-EX clock distribution board.  The sCLK-EX board is what turns a "standard" sMS-200 into the "Ultra" version.  It can be configured to accept a 10MHz reference clock feed, and in turn it can provide clock signals to up to 4 devices.  So in the case of my sMS-200Ultra, the sCLK-EX board itself  is clocked via the 10MHz feed from the Mutec REF10, and in turn it the sCLK-EX provides a clock signal to the sMS-200 itself, and  to the connector for the modified switch.  There is a simple SMB type cable that connects the modified switch to the sMS-200Ultra.  So this is a little bit of a spaghetti / DIY solution, but it does mean that the switch is effectively clocked from the Mutec REF10.  As it happens, the SMB cable is a little longer than it needs to be, these cables only cost pennies, so it occurs to me that I should get a shorter cable, no reason why not.

What I found at the weekend was that adding this "clocked" switch did indeed provide a nice improvement, this was in terms of the fine details, being more easily able to hear the ambience in the room and other subtle nuances in the recording.  This was a definite plus.  It was however accompanied by what sounded like a touch of extra harshness in the highs.  Thinking about this, I recall now that I tried the switch last year, and I was not convinced that it was not actually making things worse, thus contributing to the decision to simply leave it out of the system.  When I was testing last weekend with the Arcam as a reference in direct A/B swaps, it was far easier to discern the goodness that the "clocked" switch was providing.  Then adding my old TP-Link switch back in and finding that this removed the slight harshness that was bugging me previously was just a lucky discovery after tying something as a hunch and as a punt.  I think I agree with @baconbrain's comment above, I suspect that my old trusty TP-Link switch just happens to be blocking some stray current or noise from the Ethernet feed, something that the SOtM modified switch is perhaps not doing such a good job with. 

I did have a chuckle to myself about all this, there have been many reports of folk (including your good self) getting excellent results running two SOtM sNH-10G switches in series, which is quite an expensive thing to try.  I seem to have lucked into something running two switches with a combined cost of less than £100.  (albeit one of them has a £400 PSU)  Joking apart, I am genuinely surprised at just how good the improvement was that I gained last weekend.  If it was not for the fact that that the EtherRegen is due to be released soon, I would be ordering a sNH-10G now, simply on the basis of what I have heard with these lesser switch mods.