(05-Jan-2017, 16:18)Soniclife Wrote: [ -> ] (04-Jan-2017, 22:29)Confused Wrote: [ -> ] (10-Dec-2016, 23:04)Soniclife Wrote: [ -> ]Ha, what's the chance of either of them sticking to that rule all through Christmas 
Very high indeed, as it happens! 
The fact that you remember this comment kind of makes me think you were waiting for Xmas to be over before doing something, so what do you have planned?
I had searched for Antoine's system thread to remind myself of what Antoine had posted regarding the SOtM sMS-200. So I guess I must at least have had the thought of trying the SOtM! Having said that, I do not have any plans to upgrade anything at the moment. Quite genuinely, I am still getting used to the Pro so I definately do not want to change anything significant at the moment, it would be too confusing. Plus, the mR works flawlessly for me at the moment and sounds great, so I am happy just to give it some time, there will always be something else new and exciting coming along before long. The new macroRendu perhaps? Anyway, I don't want to clutter up Antoine's thread with my musings, but if the man himself (a fellow Mutec MC3+USB/Pro user) was to offer an update on the SOtM, I would of course be very interested......
Hey guys, I admit it's been very quiet here and that's because of one simple reason: I didn't change anything!
So sorry to "prove you wrong" Soniclife!
I've only enjoyed my system by listening to music and I haven't even compared the SoTM SMS-200 to the mR yet. So the SMS-200 has been in place since first connecting it.
One thing I did do this week, something that's been on my to do list for quite some time, was exchange the 500GB SSD disk in my previous music server with the 120GB SSD in my 'NAS' PC (which also holds 2x3GB harddisks). Now all my CD rips are stored on a SSD (I own little over 700 albums so that fits) so the harddisks can spin down to save power. My previous music server is only used for video streaming duties nowadays so a 30GB SSD would already be enough. Using the free but excellent EaseUS backup software I could easily migrate/clone both the installations without reinstalling the operating systems etc.
This week I also bought a 20 meter long OM3 fiber cable to experiment with something Romaz brought up on CA. He found that a direct connection to the mR/SMS-200 from his music server, bypassing any active networking equipment like switches and routers significantly improved SQ. It's something that's very counterintuitive to me but cheap enough to try. Of course the way I planned it is not fully equal to what he did since I plan to keep using fiber (my Roon Core server runs on the NAS PC which is in a different room) and thus FMC's, though I did look for fiber ethernet NIC's for in my NAS PC so I would only need one FMC. More info on what Romaz found here:
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f10-mu...ndu-31110/
When I feel that "tinkering itch" again to either connect the fiber cable or compare the SMS-200 to mR I'll report back my results.
(07-Jan-2017, 16:20)Antoine Wrote: [ -> ]This week I also bought a 20 meter long OM3 fiber cable to experiment with something Romaz brought up on CA. He found that a direct connection to the mR/SMS-200 from his music server, bypassing any active networking equipment like switches and routers significantly improved SQ. It's something that's very counterintuitive to me but cheap enough to try. Of course the way I planned it is not fully equal to what he did since I plan to keep using fiber (my Roon Core server runs on the NAS PC which is in a different room) and thus FMC's, though I did look for fiber ethernet NIC's for in my NAS PC so I would only need one FMC. More info on what Romaz found here: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f10-mu...ndu-31110/
When I feel that "tinkering itch" again to either connect the fiber cable or compare the SMS-200 to mR I'll report back my results.
Great link, thx for posting! As it so happens, I got a little bored over the holidays waiting for my Pro to arrive and drilled a nice hole in the wall between my listening area and office with the idea to setup a dedicated Cat7 audio connection (DIY Audioquest) between my main switch and the mR (thus reducing the number of switches in my overall network by one), but this suggestion of Romaz is even better. I've got to try it ....
SOrry about previous empty post, problem between brain and keyboard!
Anyway I read these posts re direct connections to SOtM SMS-200 with interest as I spent yesterday setting up a DHCP server on my iMAC which is running Roon and then running Ethernet/fibre/Ethernet (AQ Vodka) directly from the iMAC to the SOtM. It sounded so good after a brief listen that I am now copying my music library from Melco to iMAC for further listening.
Planning to put an iFi psu on the SOtM FMC and removing Linksys router from the hifi rack. I will also connect the iMAC FMC into another ring main to dump the noise created.
Just off to do some more listening.....
Will update sig soon
Interesting comments guys, I'm really interested in your findings and am also following the CA topic closely. Can't wait for Romaz to test with his FMC's in the chain as this could also change my plans.
This really is a weird hobby!!
I already called all of this 'counter intuitive' as it goes against everything I know/have learned this far. In this case I would surely have never expected things to become better, rather the opposite: removing the noisy computer and moving it as far away as possible from the system/adding proper isolation in between has always been good practice. This at least was true for USB but now with at least the SMS-200 people are reporting that a direct ethernet link between the music server and the SMS-200 is better. I really can't think of any sound reasons why this would be the case and am really puzzled by all of it. Why would any active ethernet components in between have an effect at all, especially when the last device in the chain provides full galvanic isolation and in effect buffers and rebuilds the complete (layer 1 and up) ethernet signal. If it would work in some cases/systems I could think of some valid reasons (ground loops, dirty/faulty switches or cables etc.) but if this shows to be a universal thing...
Besides using the fibre optic cable I realized I can easily test this direct connection using a copper ethernet as well by temporarily re-using a cable that's already running from my upstairs switch to the downstairs switch, I'll just have to extend it a bit and I believe I have a coupling block laying around somewhere to do so. Of course this is not optimal but should provide some idea of what's possible. Perhaps I'll do both tests this coming weekend.
(09-Jan-2017, 14:38)Antoine Wrote: [ -> ]This really is a weird hobby!! I already called all of this 'counter intuitive' as it goes against everything I know/have learned this far. In this case I would surely have never expected things to become better, rather the opposite: removing the noisy computer and moving it as far away as possible from the system/adding proper isolation in between has always been good practice. This at least was true for USB but now with at least the SMS-200 people are reporting that a direct ethernet link between the music server and the SMS-200 is better. I really can't think of any sound reasons why this would be the case and am really puzzled by all of it. Why would any active ethernet components in between have an effect at all, especially when the last device in the chain provides full galvanic isolation and in effect buffers and rebuilds the complete (layer 1 and up) ethernet signal. If it would work in some cases/systems I could think of some valid reasons (ground loops, dirty/faulty switches or cables etc.) but if this shows to be a universal thing...
I am not "yet" convinced that this would be "universal". I believe some may profit more than others, mainly based upon the reasons you have mentioned .. (ground loops, dirty/faulty switches or cables etc.). My motivation to try this is of course SQ driven, but simplification and "isolation" (one line solely for audio) are other indirect benefits which personally interest me.
In which mode are you using your mR? The reason why I am asking is that Vortecjr posted info on CA
Sonicorbiter-direct-connection-mac-pc-beta as to which modes of the mR support Network bridging and which do not. Unfortunately NAA (the one I prefer) does not.
Have to see how far I get with it ...
Hi BaconBrain, I fully agree. I'm sure many more people will report back their results and of course one always has to try for himself (like you, carcrashboy and I are doing/planning) to determine the worth of something like this. It's easy (when you're not a networking noob of course) and cheap enough. I do know Romaz has an excellent system and there's little he hasn't tried. If it was most anyone else sharing what he did I probably wouldn't have taken it seriously.
I'm not currently using the mR but the SMS-200. Both run in Roon RAAT mode. HQPlayer is another thing on my list to try one day, I've never used it anywhere. Good luck with your experiments!
edit: I'm not sure yet if I'll use bridging. I may try to get things working first in the old fashioned way using static routes and a DHCP server on the machine (which has an onboard nic and seperate Intel i210 server adapter). The default gateway will be on the regular adapter and I'll use a seperate subnet for the adapter to the SMS-200. I don't use Tidal with Roon so that interface used to directly connect the SMS-200 doesn't need Internet access except for SMS-200 updates. I'll figure out where these come from and add static routes for that/those hosts and any other routes that are possibly needed.