A novel way to massively improve the SQ of computer audio streaming

[lmitche]

3 minutes ago, vortecjr said:

Those are the sort things you have to do...I don't miss these days:) I know about the switch, but PCIE connector has power traces on it. Again I can't remember what they said about it.  

Some of us like doing these sorts of things.

[vortecjr]

21 minutes ago, Lebouwsky said:

Unfortunately the mb requires 12v and the earlier mentioned tx/sclk requires 9v, powered externally through the txusbexp barrel. I’ve asked May to mod it so it can take 12v too. This way 1 sps500 in combination with a Y dc cable should be able to power it all.

Just extend the internal 4 pin molex connector to a barrel connector. You might have to make it or use a combination of adapter cables.  

[vortecjr]

9 minutes ago, lmitche said:

Some of us like doing these sorts of things.

clearly:)

[lmitche]

3 minutes ago, vortecjr said:

clearly:)

Vendors alone can't have all the fun!

[austinpop]

2 hours ago, vortecjr said:

We actually have something in common? I have a P5 with my digital gear connected to it and my amp connected directly to the wall outlet. Speaking of outlets...how did you connect 6AWG wire to your outlet? I have a dedicated run of 10AWG wire and it was a bear to connect it to the outlet.  

 

Good to know you have a P5 too. I have yet to try completely removing it from the path and connecting my digital gear directly. That will be the second half of the “revisiting my optimizations” experiment.

 

As for 6 AWG. I described the project here:

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/30376-a-novel-way-to-massively-improve-the-sq-of-computer-audio-streaming/?do=findComment&comment=765580

 

The trick was:

1. The conductor was stranded, and

2. The outlet Jim supplied had been modded to accommodate the cable, so there was no adapter or pigtail.

[RickyV]

So last thursday i had an idea and that was, if it is possible to parallel the 1A lt3045 boards from ldovr.com to make a 2A, 3A, 4A etc power supply. So i asked him and after some testing, i think he confirmed that it was. So here it is

 

   On 1-2-2018 at 11:21 PM,  RickyV said: 

Hi alexey,

would it be possible to parallel 3 of your 1A lt3045 boards to make a 3A version?

Probably with Some creative soldering and replacing some components. Would be great if that was possible

Yes it is possible, but "creative soldering" is required.

 

Problem that it is very difficult to match output voltages precisely, and the board with highest output will supply most of the current.... (see picture1 below).....

But, if you connect "SET" Networks together (lower end of C3/ you can see violet wires) - you will get matched outputs (and currents/picture2)

 

 

 

 

In my previous posts i was trying to link to this but stanglynobody picked up on this.

My (very) mini review of the Singxer SU-1 DDC

[lmitche]

9 minutes ago, RickyV said:

So last thursday i had an idea and that was, if it is possible to parallel the 1A lt3045 boards from ldovr.com to make a 2A, 3A, 4A etc power supply. So i asked him and after some testing, i think he confirmed that it was. So here it is

 

   On 1-2-2018 at 11:21 PM,  RickyV said: 

Hi alexey,

would it be possible to parallel 3 of your 1A lt3045 boards to make a 3A version?

Probably with Some creative soldering and replacing some components. Would be great if that was possible

Read more  

Yes it is possible, but "creative soldering" is required.

 

Problem that it is very difficult to match output voltages precisely, and the board with highest output will supply most of the current.... (see picture1 below).....

But, if you connect "SET" Networks together (lower end of C3/ you can see violet wires) - you will get matched outputs (and currents/picture2)

 

 

 

 

In my previous posts i was trying to link to this but stanglynobody picked up on this.

My (very) mini review of the Singxer SU-1 DDC

Alexey is a genius for presenting the problem and solution here in such a concise, clear and a picture is worth a thousand words fashion.

 

I have a dozen of these boards here, and they deliver substantial value, even with great power supplies like the lps-1.

[RickyV]

So is it a good idea to make a full atx power supply with these boards?

In combination with low power mobo like super micro x10 woulded that be perfect?

I am thinking about making that in an 4A version, so it can take peak loads and to reduce heat. Also you have to make some sort of heatsink.

I am now useing an asrock Qc5000-itx with a tdp of 15w but i like the super micro.

Perhaps @marce can shed some light on this idea.

[RickyV]

7 minutes ago, lmitche said:

Alexey is a genius for presenting the problem and solution here in such a concise, clear and a picture is worth a thousand words fashion.

 

I have a dozen of these boards here, and they deliver substantial value, even with great power supplies like the lps-1.

 

If i didn’t ASK him he wouldn’t have looked into that! 

[lmitche]

Just now, RickyV said:

 

If i didn’t ASK him he wouldn’t have looked into that! 

Yes indeed, great job RickyV!

[KingRex]

15 hours ago, seeteeyou said:

 

Sean Jacobs made one that's up to 5A

 

http://www.custom-hifi-cables.co.uk/home/power-supplies/dc3-power-supply

Mojo audio has a used Joule 5 for sale. 

[lmitche]

10 minutes ago, RickyV said:

So is it a good idea to make a full atx power supply with these boards?

In combination with low power mobo like super micro x10 woulded that be perfect?

I am thinking about making that in an 4A version, so it can take peak loads and to reduce heat. Also you have to make some sort of heatsink.

I am now useing an asrock Qc5000-itx with a tdp of 15w but i like the super micro.

Perhaps @marce can shed some light on this idea.

There are some other high current lt3045 solutions like the Stammheim 3 amp boards from diyaudio.com as well. I should have one here any day now.

[RickyV]

So 4A per rail that would be 4x3 rails= 12 boards x 22.95 dollar = 275 dollar

[RickyV]

Yes i pm him to. he say that every reg. can deliver peaks of 0.7A, i have to look at the specs

[lmitche]

15 minutes ago, RickyV said:

So 4A per rail that would be 4x3 rails= 12 boards x 22.95 dollar = 275 dollar

Yes, in theory, however heat issues need to be considered. It sounds like Alexey is working on a solution. Clearly three boards can be connected in a stack with standoffs and wires run in parallel between the boards for input, output and the network connections.

 

Also remember these are DC input boards, so you need an AC to DC  stage in front of Alexey's boards.  The Stammheim boards have rectifiers and caps for ac input.

[Johnseye]

2 hours ago, vortecjr said:

people reading this should know that if they use a Supermicro board for a Roon server that it will be short on performance. Roon recommends:

• Intel Core i3, Ivy Bridge+
• 4GB RAM
• SSD boot drive
• 1440 x 900 Resolution

I can tell you from speaking with Andrew that he recommends an i5 at minimum and prefers an i7. The difference being that you want an i7 with a large music collection and with DSP. His i7 is only 11 watts so nothing to obsess over regarding noise. Professional use could mean better parts or longer runs, or any number of things.

 

As for the noisy DC-DC converter there is no free lunch you now have those right on the board. And if you use the 4 pin power source input and an ATX power source you will have 2x the number of noisy DC-DC converter:) 

 

Also, you said that the tX-USBexp does not draw current form the motherboard. You might want to double check this with SOtM. I asked them about this a long time ago, but I can't remember with certainty what they said. 

 

I've used an i7 dumbed down to 800mhz with no problem. I've used a Celeron with no problem. Upsampling and DSP have no issues. 

 

I'm sure the 1440 x 900 resolution is critical however. 

[auricgoldfinger]

3 hours ago, vortecjr said:

The Sonore upgrade power supply for the music servers were $839/$859. We also included a $150 (our cost) custom Cardas DC cable with each.

 

 

Is that the same as what I believe you used to call your Sonore Signature Power Supply?  Sorry if my memory is faulty.

[vortecjr]

6 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

 

I've used an i7 dumbed down to 800mhz with no problem. I've used a Celeron with no problem. Upsampling and DSP have no issues. 

 

I'm sure the 1440 x 900 resolution is critical however. 

DSP aside it takes a ton of time/HP to sort out large collections. During this process we get reports of strange things happening. Andrew at SGC knows more about than I do and has had extensive chats with Roon on the subject. 

[vortecjr]

10 minutes ago, auricgoldfinger said:

 

Is that the same as what I believe you used to call your Sonore Signature Power Supply?  Sorry if my memory is faulty.

No. It didn’t really have a name...we just generically called it an upgrade power supply.

[Johnseye]

13 minutes ago, vortecjr said:

DSP aside it takes a ton of time/HP to sort out large collections. During this process we get reports of strange things happening. Andrew at SGC knows more about than I do and has had extensive chats with Roon on the subject. 

 

Specifically when doing an "Audio Analysis" in Roon on a lesser processor it takes a very very long time.  Otherwise it's all equal.

[lmitche]

35 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

 

Specifically when doing an "Audio Analysis" in Roon on a lesser processor it takes a very very long time.  Otherwise it's all equal.

There is a control to slow or speed up the audio analysis speed in Roon. It has immediate impact on performance.

[Johnseye]

1 minute ago, lmitche said:

There is a control to slow or speed up the audio analysis speed in Roon. It has immediate impact on performance.

 

Yes thanks, I've used it.  It does speed things up, but analysis is still much longer with a Celeron vs i7.  This is really not an issue though as analysis only takes place when adding content or rebuilding a PC and restoring a library backup.

[lmitche]

On 2/1/2018 at 1:33 AM, austinpop said:

We found no benefit or degradation from using 1 sCLK-EX vs 2 sCLK-EX boards in the chain

Changing the subject back to clocks for a post or two, Rajiv this means you could reduce the spaghetti by having a clock board per device right? More expensive, sure, but less wires? Hmmm, although it probably is just one less wire with the innuous? If so, probably not worth it.

[elan120]

28 minutes ago, lmitche said:

Changing the subject back to clocks for a post or two, Rajiv this means you could reduce the spaghetti by having a clock board per device right? More expensive, sure, but less wires? Hmmm, although it probably is just one less wire with the innuous? If so, probably not worth it.

This sounds like just making all external cable as internal cable, which will make the setup not only more expensive, but same amount of cables.

[austinpop]

1 hour ago, lmitche said:

Changing the subject back to clocks for a post or two, Rajiv this means you could reduce the spaghetti by having a clock board per device right? More expensive, sure, but less wires? Hmmm, although it probably is just one less wire with the innuous? If so, probably not worth it.

 

This is an interesting question, and worth unpacking. If you look at where the SQ improvements due to clocks in my (and others') system have come from, it's from 2 waves:

1. First wave: the use of clock points from an sCLK-EX board. The key features here are:
   • A 4:1 benefit, as one board can drive as many as 4 independent clock frequencies, and potentially 4 independent components.
   • This is a frequency synthesizer design, that uses an internal 10MHz reference oscillator, that can be overriden by an external reference oscillator of even higher quality
   • We do not know the phase noise characteristics of the sCLK-EX, as SOtM has never published. It is clearly "great," based on sonic impressions, but we don't have a number.
2. Second wave: the use of a 10 MHz reference clock. In my case, my OP-14 has a -114.9 dBC/Hz @ 1Hz, in others', the Ref 10 is rated at -116 dBC/Hz @ 1Hz. These excellent numbers translate to another quantum leap in SQ.

Now, some interesting points to ponder:

1. The architecture of using a single reference clock to drive a 4:1 frequency synthesizer like the sCLK-EX gives a very nice way to multiply and distribute the "goodness" of a single reference clock, to components that were not designed to accept reference clocks.
2. We don't know how much that phase noise increases (i.e. degrades), once you factor in the cable length, cable quality, connector quality, impedance mismatches if any, etc. So there are losses, and you just have to evaluate the end result. I would love to see measurements of how phase noise is degraded by these factors. 
3. In other words, when you start with a reference clock with a -116 phase noise, what is the effective phase noise at the destination of the distribution chain? And could you replace this distribution chain with a higher phase noise clock that was internal to the device? What does that number need to be? -110? -105? -100? Fascinating question.
4. Could we replace this architecture with clocks in each device? Certainly yes, but I think the cost would be prohibitive!
5. I see two approaches:
   • a) Fixed frequency oscillators: OCXO's in every box in the chain - router, switch, server/player, regenerator, DAC, with phase noise numbers of -114 or better! Maybe if you factor in the short cable lengths and direct connections, you could get away with lesser specs to achieve equivalent SQ.
   • b) Frequency synthesizers with reference 10 MHz oscillators: I suspect this was what you were asking. What if each component incorporated a frequency synthesizer, a sort-of simpler sCLK-EX with just the number of taps needed for that device? And if each device had an input for a 10MHz reference clock, that could override the internal reference?

Frankly I would love to see a move to 4b) design. If I remember correctly, @JohnSwenson had observed in one of his informative posts, that the price of frequency synthesized clocks had come down substantially in price to where such designs are more cost effective. I am parapahrasing, of course.

 

Sorry if this is a long winded way of saying yes to your question: this means you could reduce the spaghetti by having a clock board per device right?