Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About romaz

  • Rank
    Sophomore Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yes, the impact when used outside of this direct connection is still significant and quite worthwhile, however, it's impact within the direct connection is noticeably greater. There are other important applications of a good switch. Having tried the SOtM switch connected to my Oppo BluRay player using a standard connection to my router, I was quite surprised by how much more briskly apps like Vudu and Netflix would load their video offerings and how much cleaner and sharper the video was. In some ways, the improvement with video is even more impressive.
  2. John, the significance of the eMMC drive is to avoid having an SSD anywhere in the renderer where it's negative impact will be heard, however, the significance of being able to fully run the OS from RAM is the more important point, I believe, since this results in massively less latency compared against an SD card or Intel X25-E. This scheme essentially provides you lower latency than even an Optane with noise comparable to an SD card. There are Intel NUC boards with i7s that you can use if you feel you want a small single chassis server and would like to upsample, however, none of the units I saw had eMMC drives. Generally speaking, I have only seen eMMC drives with Celeron NUCs. Since these NUCs are quite small and inexpensive, it would probably be more ideal to buy an i7 NUC as a server and something like the NUC I am using which has an eMMC drive as a renderer and if desired (if space is a premium), stack one on top of the other. The key will be the switch and of course what you use to power the switch and the renderer. As for the need to spend lots of money on a server if you are using a good switch between server and renderer, I think this is where a switch becomes extremely valuable. I certainly couldn't justify using something like a Zenith SE as a server in this situation, however, as a standalone server/renderer, the Zenith SE is still an excellent unit and deserving of all the praise that has been heaped upon it. For those who don't want to deal with the complexities of multiple devices, the Zenith SE is tough to beat. Furthermore, Innuos is a solid company who offers first rate support. As I prepared to sell my SE, I had some operational issues with my unit and Nuno was very quick and gracious to help me out even though he knew full well that I was selling my unit. Their customer support is some of the best I have experienced. I, too, would like to know how my cheap NUC compares against something like a Nucleus that uses ROCK. Hopefully, I will be able to make this comparison soon. Since HQP makes an app for renderers that will communicate with HQP installed on a separate server, there's no reason to believe what I am doing can't apply to an HQP setup but I have not done this testing to know for sure. Regarding the sMS-200ultra and ultraRendu, look at my response to Larry a few posts back. If I thought I could get them to sound as good as a Zenith SE, I would never have bought the Zenith SE. As stated, my NUC setup now surpasses my SE. I'm not quite sure what you mean by hard drives on the sMS-200ultra or ultraRendu since these units don't have hard drives.
  3. What I'm talking about isn't necessarily complex (server > switch > renderer) but certainly, it can't compare to the simplicity of spinning a CD with a Chord BluMk2. With regards to SQ, the BluMk2 CD transport has served as a very good benchmark to compare against and it has not been easy to surpass CD playback since when you spin a CD, you don't have to worry about the impact of computer noise, power supplies, cables, etc. However, depending on the quality of the master, the quality of the rip, and the bitrate of the file, I have in many cases matched and even surpassed CD playback SQ. When it comes to the convenience of being able create playlists off millions of tracks from within my library and from Tidal, there's simply no comparison. This highlights another significant impact of the switch. For some time now, as I have been using a reclocked switch for the past year in my chain, I have not noticed any difference between local playback and playback from a NAS or off Tidal. Provided we are talking about identical masters, even when I still had my Zenith SE, I could detect no meaningful difference when playing back from the SE's internal SSD or from my NAS. With the anticipated arrival of Qobuz here in the U.S. (and hopefully, it gets incorporated into Roon), it's possible I will have no incentive to buy music in the future, certainly not CDs since Qobuz will be streaming hi-res files.
  4. Nothing has been finalized. I would love to evaluate the new Innuos Statement and even the Antipodes CX + EX and see how far off I am (if at all) but obviously, it would be very hard for either of these units to compete with what I have from a value standpoint. Whether I upgrade my NUC with an sCLK-EX board or not, I haven't decided because what I have now is sounding so good although I suspect at some point, I will want to do it so that I can take further advantage of the REF10. The beauty of this simple inexpensive setup is that I could run RoonServer off a centralized QNAP NAS with SSD cache. As their NAS units have multiple LAN ports that are bridgeable, this NAS could then feed multiple NUCs. Of course, each NUC will need to be preceded by its own switch but this whole thing shouldn't cost that much.
  5. You're on the right track, Larry. Without giving too much away, TLS's OS is their own variant of audiolinux. The beauty of these small NUC boards is they are not difficult to power well. I suspect 12V at 2A just might do it.
  6. I think my point with separating server and renderer has more to do with distributing tasks (such as library management, DSP, upsampling, rendering, etc) so that a single CPU doesn't have to do all the work. This should result in less latency, especially by the more important machine that is closest to the DAC. If you have a fanless server and renderer, I wouldn't feel compelled to have to physically separate them into different rooms, at least not for SQ reasons. The benefit of a switch, which Sonore is not advocating at all at this time, is that you now don't have to spend a lot of effort and money into optimizing your server.
  7. If you're referring to SOtM's new switch, they are awaiting parts and so no official release date or price that I am aware of. If you're referring to Uptone Audio's switch, I would like to know the answer to that one myself.
  8. Hi Alex, I think we are all expecting nothing less than a home run with your switch. It's good to know you will be including a master clock input.
  9. The new SOtM switch is still the best switch among the switches that I have in my possession even without the REF10. Without the REF10, I would rate it a 9. The SOtM switch definitely isolates better than the other switches that I have.
  10. Yes, this uses a better board than my own as it uses a Celeron with a larger secondary cache which should result in less latency. It also utilizes DDR4 RAM instead of DDR3. At this point, I do not know which type of RAM is lower latency.
  11. Regarding power supplies for this NUC board, yes, it scales extremely well to power supplies and better than my DFI board. This board can accept 12-19V. During my testing with my SR7s, 19V sounds a little better than 12V but DR (double regulated) 12V sounds considerably better than 19V. The ideal SR7 for this board would likely be a DR 19V which I do not have. There is a language barrier when communicating with Adrian as English is not his first language and so he did not fully grasp the significance of the eMMC drive with this board that I selected. The board he ultimately chose to go with in his upcoming DS-1 streamer is an even better board than what I have and it was the board I had wished to use originally. This board is the Intel NUC7CJYB which also incorporates a 32GB eMMC drive but unfortunately, it cannot be purchased standalone through standard channels. You would have to purchase the much more expensive NUC7CJYSAL kit that includes the board along with Windows 10 and a heavily plasticized NUC chassis. You would have to explant the board from the stock Intel chassis and preferentially install it into a fanless chassis although because this board is so new, I have not yet found a company who is making an alternate chassis for this board. I would suggest against using the stock Intel chassis since it uses a fan that is powered by the motherboard that undoubtedly will be adding it's own electrical noise to the ground plane. The significance of this other board is that it incorporates the newer Celeron J4005 processor that has an identical 10w TDP but provides a larger size cache of 2MB per core (as opposed to only 1MB per core with the board I have). In theory, this should result in even lower latency although whether this results in any real world improvement in SQ is not something I have knowledge of. I believe Intel is supplying TLS with these boards on an OEM basis and that they have also made arrangements with another company to build a very attractive and solidly made fanless aluminum chassis for their upcoming streamer. As Rajiv mentioned, there will be the option to outfit this streamer with a single OCXO. Of course, it will come with their Dream OS which will run from RAM and can be powered by any suitable 12-19V CPU of your choosing (since my unit consumes up to 15w during bootup, I don't think an LPS-1.2 will work). I don't believe they've finalized their pricing yet but for those who would prefer a turnkey solution that comes with support, this could be a very good option. FYI, I do not have any financial arrangement with TLS nor do I plan to. They have not provided me anything for free and thus far, I have not purchased any of their products. In exchange for the use of their OS, I have provided them feedback and that is all.
  12. No doubt that this NUC board can be further improved, Mark, but it is impressive to hear how good this thing sounds "as is." And running an OS from memory doesn't guarantee low latency if the OS is inefficient and has lots of unnecessary processes/threads running and if inefficient drivers are being utilized. Sometimes, the bottleneck is in software and not in hardware which is why it was interesting to see the wide range of 10-150X less latency that was reported when this OS was run from RAM vs a PCIe NVMe SSD. Also, RAM should have way more than just 10-150X less latency than an NVMe SSD and so obviously, a well-tuned OS matters.
  13. Hi Larry, Sorry for the delayed response. I've been busy. Yes, I believe the concept of a switch as a firewall has potentially huge implications. For an upsampler such as yourself, instead of pouring lots of effort and thousands of dollars into an elaborate server, there is now the potential of instead using any inexpensive server, pouring a few hundred dollars into a low power, low impedance, and low latency renderer (which are easier to power well) and preceding it with a good switch. Is it just about isolation and the avoidance of leakage currents? I don't believe so. My TP-Link FMCs should be effectively blocking leakage current and yet these optical isolators result in very little improvement to SQ in my system. Moreover, using John Swenson's recommended Netgear switch with his ground tweak resulted in only modest gains. With the TLS switch, as I swapped PSUs from the stock LPS that came with it to the sPS-500, LPS-1 and eventually the SR7, the improvement in sound stage and dynamics were quite impressive and very similar to what one might find by adding a very good active preamp to an amplifier. To my ears, what I am hearing has at least as much to do with low impedance and signal gain (if this is even possible) and not just low noise. I believe the "direct Ethernet connection" via bridged LAN ports remains an integral part of all of this and so it's not just about the switch. According to Mark Jenkins who has now embraced this connection, "the direct Ethernet solution...minimises network chatter on the link and creates a high bandwidth, phase accurate, low-noise direct link between the server and the renderer." Whether this is actually what's going on or not can be debated but there's no denying this direct connection makes a difference and does things that the switch alone cannot accomplish. Of course, the concept of a low noise, low power renderer is not a new one and there are already several good options out there including the sMS-200ultra and ultraRendu but I don't believe these current offerings are as good as this NUC I'm now testing and so people will have to do their own comparisons and make up their own minds. Here are my reasons for making such a statement: 1. As many know, I used to own an sMS-200ultra and I found it to be very good. As I've posted, I eventually replaced the sMS-200ultra with my custom server because I found it to be more convenient but also because it sounded better. As I more recently posted, I found the Innuos Zenith SE to be better than my custom server in very important areas and so logic would dictate that the Zenith SE should be superior to the sMS-200ultra even though I didn't directly compare one against the other. 2. Rajiv told me he recently performed a direct comparison of his Zenith SE against an sMS-200ultra and even with the sMS-200ultra powered by an SR7, he found the SE to be superior to the sMS-200ultra. Some time ago, Rajiv, et al, directly compared the sMS-200ultra against the ultraRendu and found them to be comparable. To paraphrase his post, I recall that he stated that if he owned one of these units already, there would be no compelling reason to switch to the other even though he had a personal preference for the sMS-200ultra. This would suggest that Rajiv believes his Zenith SE sounds better than the ultraRendu. Rajiv, please feel free to correct me if I have misrepresented your findings. 3. In John Darko's review of the Zenith SE (https://darko.audio/2017/10/richer-sounds-with-the-innuos-zenith-mkii-se/), John Darko compared the Zenith SE to the ultraRendu and preferred the SE. In his words, "I find myself haunted by my memory of its sound. It was like no other digital source I'd heard to date: richer and smoother than more affordable rivals like the Sonore ultraRendu..." I'm sure you're wondering what the Zenith SE has to do with any of this since it isn't a low power renderer like the other two and at $7k retail, it's also not in the same price category. In actuality, the Zenith SE can be used purely as a renderer (while consuming less than 20 watts) and sounds even better than when the SE functions as a full blown server/renderer. Ultimately, the reason I brought up the Zenith SE is that my inexpensive NUC (which cost me <$300 for the board, 8GB of RAM and a fanless Akasa chassis) when coupled with TLS's Dream OS and powered by my SR7 outperformed my Zenith SE. In theory, because the motherboards used by the sMS-200ultra and ultraRendu are even smaller than my NUC motherboard and are boards that are specialized for audio playback, because both utilize low power ARM CPUs, and because neither utilize SSDs, there's no logical reason why these types of renderers shouldn't be superior to my NUC when similarly powered by an SR7 and yet, this doesn't appear to be the case. Is it possible that Intel CPUs with their larger cache have lower latency and result in better SQ than ARM CPUs? Is it possible that Roon just sounds better on an Intel X86 platform? Sorry for the long winded answer but I figured I'd answer some of the other questions that were brought up by others. To fully answer your question, yes, all you need is a NUC board with eMMC storage, RAM, a compact OS that can run completely from RAM, and the best 12-19V PSU that you have at your disposal...and of course, a good switch.
  14. It's been awhile but I made a promise to someone that I would submit this post and so here goes. I have not kept up faithfully with this thread or any other thread but friends have periodically brought certain important findings to my attention and so I am aware of how splendidly so many of you have continued to push the envelope with regards to digital. It's nice to see that the spirit that this thread was founded on remains vibrant and strong. Thanks especially to Rajiv for continuing to moderate this thread so ably. Much has changed with my own system since I last posted. While I have largely retired from posting due to other time commitments, my curiosity for the unknown aspects of digital continues to burn strong. I have no scientific explanation for so many differences that I hear but as best as I have been able to figure out, good digital amounts to 3 things: (1) low noise, (2) low impedance, and (3) low latency. Maybe there are other characteristics I have left out but as I have attempted to improve my own digital setup, I have sought to address primarily these 3 things. As those who have followed this thread from the beginning are aware, I put together my own single chassis server some time ago and it was the very best I knew how to do. Foundational to this server were a modified DFI motherboard, 7 SR7 rails, 9 clock replacements (from the router all the way to my final endpoint just before my DAC), and a REF10 that tied all these clocks together. My OS of choice was Windows Server 2016 running off an Intel X25-E SLC SSD which was further refined with AO/Process Lasso/Fidelizer Pro. Roon was my player of choice. What I got was smooth, harsh-free digital playback with robust dynamics. Sitting atop a Synergistic Research Tranquility Base, I was pretty happy with this setup...for about 3 months. Then came along the Innuos Zenith SE and it highlighted some important deficiencies in my system. While my server brought about a greater sense of resolution and less harshness thanks in large part to all my clock replacements and the REF10, the SE displayed superior dynamics, even with my SR7 powering my server. Having taken apart my SE and carefully examined what went into this build and having spoken with Nuno of Innuos and Sean Jacobs, the SE's PSU designer, it became clear to me there were several reasons for what I was hearing but a big reason was the SuperMicro board they chose was superior to the DFI motherboard I used with my build. With the SE followed by my tX-USBultra powered by a DR rail from my SR7, this was now my very best setup and so I purchased an Innuos Zenith SE. I was pretty happy with this setup...for about 6 months. There remained a subtle harshness with my digital setup that was tolerable in my large listening room where I had my large Martin Logan Renaissance electrostats but less tolerable in my nearfield Voxativ setup. Voxativs have a tendency to run bright and so any HF harshness tends to get magnified with these speakers resulting in fatigue. When I swapped out the SE for my old modified Mac Mini that ran MacOS off an SD card, this harshness went away but it was at the expense of vibrancy and immediacy. There was a definite tradeoff. I swapped in my other modified Mac Mini that ran Windows Server 2016/AO off an integrated PCIe NVMe SSD and the vibrancy and immediacy came back but the harshness was even worse than the harshness I heard with the SE. Just like in the past, after 5-6 hours of listening, there was fatigue. In my view, it had to be the SSD that was the culprit. According to Ed Hsu of Sound Galleries, SSDs emit a noise in the 6GHz range that is very difficult to filter and the faster the SSD, generally the noisier it is. Based on what I was hearing, I had no reason to doubt what he was saying. Late last year, I was introduced to Adrian Wun, owner of The Linear Solution (TLS) by a fellow CA member. Adrian was designing his own server that incorporated the same SuperMicro motherboard used in the Zenith SE although he modified this board with multiple OCXO replacements and powered it with his own custom designed multi-rail ATX PSU. What really intrigued me was his custom OS, basically a modified and purposefully-tuned Linux OS that he compacted down to a size below 6GB and so he was able to completely run this OS from memory. With this OS completely running from 8GB of RAM vs a PCIe NVMe SSD, he said latency improved by a factor of 10-150x depending on what processes were running. I filed this little tidbit into my own memory because I knew I would want to eventually explore this. A New Motherboard Discovery My Innous Zenith SE experience taught me what many others on CA had known for some time, that performance is likely to improve if the CPU and the rest of the motherboard are powered independently. This means that my DFI motherboard was being crippled by the single 12V DC feed that was powering the entire board. In my mind, if I was to one day build something even better than the SE, I would need to target a motherboard that provided independent power to the CPU which meant I would be forced to using an ATX PSU (or at the very least, a DC-ATX converter). Paul Hynes told me he would one day get around to designing one but he had too much on his plate to know when this would happen. Sean Jacobs told me he could build one for me immediately. As the Zenith SE I owned already incorporated one of Sean's wonderful designs, I figured my best bet was to stay put, however, I continued to be on the lookout for better motherboards that would allow me to completely do away with an SSD. Earlier this year, I came across a particular Intel NUC motherboard that incorporated a certain feature that has intrigued me for some time. This motherboard is the Intel NUC6CAYB and here is that motherboard: https://www.yoycart.com/Product/549337720006/ What intrigued me about this board is its use of an eMMC device for OS storage. This is 32GB of solid state storage that is "embedded" onto the board that is as electrically quiet as an SD card but has "near" the speed of a typical SATA III SSD. Other features include an embedded low power Celeron CPU with an SoC architecture and up to 8GB of RAM capacity. Unfortunately, there was no way to power the CPU independently as this board takes a single 12-19V DC feed, however, given the very small 4" x 4" size of this UCFF (Ultra Compact Form Factor) board, I figured it should have even lower impedance than a larger mini-ITX board and was worth $100 to test it. I was able to convince Adrian to "loan" me his customized OS for this build and so while his OS is permanently stored on the eMMC drive, upon boot up, this OS transfers completely into 8GB of RAM and so the eMMC drive serves only as a place to store the OS when the server is shut down. While you could argue that I could have used an SSD drive in this situation and that the SSD would sit idle since the OS would be running completely from memory, my contention is that even a dormant SSD still generates noise. In the end, the proof is in the listening. With Adrian's Dream OS loaded onto this board and running completely from RAM, with Roon Server running as the sole app, and with this inexpensive server powered by a DR rail from my SR7, I was hoping it would come close to my Zenith SE with respect to dynamics but improve upon the SE with respect to less HF harshness. I was not prepared to discover that this setup quite soundly bettered my $7k SE in every way. Unlike my DFI board, it was as if this board was allowing my DR SR7 to really show what it could do. Dynamics were superior to the SE. Transients were cleaner. Immediacy and tonal vibrancy were better and with none of the harshness! I compared this NUC board against both my modified Mac Minis and against my custom server and this new build easily bested both Mac Minis. Against my previous custom server, the perceived detail resolution was still superior with my custom server due to all the clock replacements but dynamics were easily superior on the NUC. If I followed the NUC with my tX-USBultra/REF10, this was now my very best setup. So good that I have sold my SE. But Wait, There's More... I tend to follow the product offerings of many music server companies to see what new innovations they have come up with and I noticed that earlier this year, Antipodes announced their new flagship was now a dual PC setup called the CX + EX, basically a server + renderer combo instead of the single box DX Gen 3. I found 2 things to be interesting: (1) Mark Jenkins felt that splitting up server and renderer duties between 2 machines resulted in superior SQ compared to a single PC functioning as both server and renderer. This is not an entirely original concept as JPLAY has been championing a dual PC setup for years based on this premise. Moreover, devices like the original microRendu have popularized the concept of a separate server and a low power NAA or Roon endpoint for some time. (2) Mark decided to employ the "direct Ethernet connection" via bridged LAN ports between the CX and EX that many of us who have been following this thread since its inception began employing some time ago. In his words, this direct Ethernet connection "provides a dramatic improvement over connecting your server and renderer through a noisy switch or over a long length of network." Good for Antipodes. While neither of the 2 concepts above are original, Antipodes is the first server commercial manufacturer that I'm aware of that is not only advocating both concepts simultaneously but is also selling a turnkey setup that incorporates both setups and unlike an ultraRendu or sMS-200ultra that are incapable of running standalone, both the CX and EX are standalone PCs meaning if the owner chooses, they can run either one without the other. This really got me thinking. While I left my SOtM trifecta some time ago because I preferred a more elegant single box solution, I decided to run my NUC as a Roon renderer only (Roon Bridge) and my Zenith SE as a Roon Server. With both connected to my network via the standard "indirect" method, there was certainly an improvement in terms of "less edginess" but the improvement was subtle. With the two connected directly via bridged LAN, the improvement in SQ as far a "less stressed" sound but also better transparency was more pronounced. Of course, to relegate the $7k Zenith SE for server only duty didn't sit that well with me and so I decided to swap out the Zenith SE for my unmodified Mac Pro with 12-core Xeon, 64GB of RAM and 1TB of PCIe NVMe SSD to see how much degradation in SQ I would get and the degradation was indeed significant with respect to harshness. This was the exact same observation I reported early on in this thread, that the direct Ethernet connection is not only more transparent to the qualities of the upstream server but also more transparent to any inadequacies that upstream server may possess. At some point during my testing with SE as server and NUC as renderer, I decided to move my SE into my home office where my near field Voxativs were kept while keeping my NUC in my larger listening room with my Martin Logans. To directly connect these 2 devices, I had to run 53 feet of Blue Jeans Cables CAT6A Ethernet cable in my crawl space and that is exactly what I did. While the improvement was still quite desirable, it was not as pronounced as what I had experienced with my SOtM trifecta which consisted of an sMS-200ultra, a cheap SOtM-modified switch, and a tX-USBultra. As I first described my experience with installing a reclocked switch into this "direct" pathway early on in this thread, I found the impact of this switch to be dramatic and nearly on par with the tX-USBultra and so I knew that I needed to throw in the switch. The Importance of the Network Switch There was no doubt in my mind that introducing a reclocked switch into this direct pathway between the SE and the NUC would result in further improvement but I was curious to know if the impact would be greater with the switch connected closer to the SE vs connected closer to the NUC. Keep in mind that these 2 devices are separated by 53 feet of BJC CAT6A cabling and I never had to contend with this length of cabling with my SOtM trifecta. Most would probably guess that the switch would have a greater impact if I connected it closer to the NUC and indeed, that is what I found. With the switch separated from the NUC by only 0.5 meter of Ethernet cabling, the improvement was quite dramatic. It was like adding a buffered gain stage (ie an active preamp) to an amplifier. Noise floor drops, dynamics improve, sound stage improves and detail clarity improves. The switch before either the SE or the NUC when connected to the network in a standard configuration makes a difference but when the switch is placed in this "direct" pathway, the difference is definitely more stark. To be honest, the above findings were expected rather than revelations. What was a revelation was how well this switch now isolates the renderer from the server. When I first described the impact of introducing a reclocked switch into the "direct" pathway, I was using only low-noise, high quality servers exclusively. By this time, I had already established that the quality of the server matters and so I never bothered to go back to my noisy Mac Pro with 12-core Xeon. In this instance, with the reclocked switch in the "direct" pathway, I decided to swap out my SE once again and replaced it with my noisy Mac Pro and what I found was truly revelatory. This switch very effectively isolated the noise coming from the Mac Pro. As I A/B'd between SE and Mac Pro, the difference between the 2 was now subtle at best. In blind testing, I was unable to tell that there was a meaningful difference at all. The significance of this is potentially huge, especially for those interested in DSP or upsampling. Now, with my untreated noisy but powerful Mac Pro, I am able to run RoonServer effortlessly. Even with tens of thousands of tracks in my library, I can search and skim through my library with ease resulting in a much more pleasant and lag-free browsing experience. I can run DSP and probably even upsample to DSD512 if I chose with this beast and with this switch in place, there would be no detriment to SQ! While I haven't tried upsampling to DSD512, I have implemented my version of a "loudness" feature where I have boosted my signal at 100Hz and 10kHz by 7dB so that I can maintain dynamics at low listening levels. While this breaks the "bit-perfect" nature of the stream, I have found this to be a wonderful "can't do without" feature with low volume listening. While this is not CPU intensive, to enable this feature within the NUC results in smooth playback but there is a definite SQ hit in terms of an edginess. With this feature enabled on my Mac Pro and with my NUC freed from any unnecessary side processes, I feel for the very first time that I have a true "no compromise" setup. Which Switch Is Best? Despite Adrian's talk about his "super server," he was still months away from having a unit available for me to listen to although earlier this year, he asked if he could ship me one of his OCXO network switches to evaluate. I was already quite happy with the switch that SOtM modified for me that was being clocked by my REF10 and was being powered by my SR7 but I eventually agreed to have him send me one. I know there has been some snickering about the "lowly" specs of the OCXO that Adrian chose for this switch. According to Adrian, it was important for him to find an OCXO that fit inside the chassis of their switch and so he realized that performance specs had to be compromised for the sake of small size although it was his contention that placing an OCXO directly onto the board would have its own advantages and as far as he is aware, his switch is the only switch currently in production that incorporates an OCXO within the switch chassis. While he also tested lesser expensive clocks from Crystek, he preferred the sound he got from this mil-spec clock produced here in the U.S. by Conner-Winfield. Like the switch modified for me by SOtM, the TLS switch also incorporates improved regulators and capacitors. For his introductory price of $650, his switch also includes a custom 5V/2A linear PSU that was designed specifically for this switch. Once again, say what you will about the pedestrian specs of the clock used in this switch and I realize there are the "engineer types" on CA who believe they already know how something is going to sound even "before the needle hits the groove" based purely on specs but this switch soundly outperforms my SOtM-modified switch even when clocked by my REF10. Obviously, there's more to a component than just the clock and Adrian has voiced this switch beautifully with all that he has done to it. If this switch has one downside compared against my SOtM-modified switch, there is a touch of brightness/harshness with the TLS switch that is not present with the SOtM-modified switch, especially when combined with the REF10. If there is one thing the REF10 does so well, it is the removal of harshness, however, with the TLS switch powered by my SR7, soundstage is bigger, dynamic contrasts are more robust, and detail clarity is improved. When combined with TLS's heavily shielded CAT7 cable (<$200 for 1.5m length), much of this brightness is nicely ameliorated although as good as his CAT7 cable is, I find SOtM's more robustly shielded and filtered dCBL-CAT7 cable to still be better. No matter how good the switch, the quality of the Ethernet cable still seems to matter. A few weeks ago, May asked me if I wanted to try SOtM's soon-to-be-released sNH-10G network switch. Of course, I said "yes" and here is what their switch looks like: Their switch (on the bottom) is quite monstrous in size compared to the other switches I have on hand. The switch directly on top of the SOtM switch is the TLS switch. On top of that is my "John Swenson" suggested switch with ground tweak and directly on top of that is the SOtM-modified switch that has been my reference for the past year. At the very top of the heap is my ZyXel Paul Pang TCXO switch that started it all. I would say that the Paul Pang switch and the John Swenson recommended switch with ground tweak work well but result in the smallest benefits. On a scale of 1-10 (where 1 is the smallest improvement and 10 is best), I would assign both of these units a score of 1. My original SOtM-modified switch when connected to the REF10 scores a 5. The TLS switch scores a 7. That means the new SOtM switch scores a 10. This switch is completely of Lee's design and incorporates an sCLK-EX board. The isolation used is based on Lee's iSO-LAN6 technology. The unit I have is a prototype and so not all of the ports are functional but when connected to the REF10, I would call this switch Lee's best work yet and it is a masterpiece product. It performs roughly on par with the tX-USBultra but considering this switch is placed before my NUC while the tX-USBultra is directly connected to my DAC, this level of impact is remarkable. The fact that this switch allows me to connect my NUC to a noisy Mac Pro and result in the best SQ I have heard in my system makes it a game changer and a more valuable piece than my tX-USBultra. Are these switches sensitive to the PSU that feeds it? Despite all the regulation built into this switch and the TLS switch, the answer is absolutely and emphatically yes. As rare and valuable as my SR7 rails are, I tend to reserve them only for the products that truly benefit and these switches are as deserving of an SR7 rail as any component that I have. I am aware of the AQVOX SE switch which is no doubt a contender although I have not yet had the opportunity to compare that switch. Of course, we're all waiting for Uptone's new switch. As network switches are right in John's wheelhouse, no one will be surprised if this switch rises to the top, especially if value is taken into consideration, however, for now, SOtM's new sNH-10G when combined with the REF10 has set the bar for the very best switch I have experienced in my system with the TLS switch setting the bar for best value.
  15. Lots of chest thumping and absolute claims about a product by people who have not yet even heard the product. Debating theory is fine. Looking at measurements and plots are important. As a physician and clinical researcher, this is what I do every day and it is essential in my pursuit to improve the lives of my patients, however, in my pursuit of the enjoyment of music, the most important metrics are not quantitative ones but a single qualitative one. The system that engages me the most to the music I love wins. The system that most capably transports me to a different time and place wins. End of argument. Go ahead and tell me about how your latest DSD filter is supposed to be the best there is but if I listen to it and compare it and prefer something else, then there's nothing more to say. My point is that you have to listen and compare and decide for yourself because there's simply no accounting for personal tastes. I own HQPlayer. I find it to be a powerful, versatile and affordable tool. It definitely has merit. I have heard many fine upsampling HQP servers with the SGM2015 perhaps being the best sounding of all. I get together routinely with a group of audiophiles and we listen and compare different pieces of equipment. With certain DACs, I'm happy to bring out my PC and upsample to DSD512 with HQP because it sounds better. With other DACs, upsampling to high-res PCM sounds better. And with Chord DACs, I find that HQPlayer doesn't add anything at all. With poor recordings that are harsh and bright, I like what DSD does. With well recorded music, especially unamplified acoustical recordings (i.e. large orchestral performances), I personally struggle with the softer transients of DSD and its relative lack of depth precision. Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong. I've listened and compared enough to know what I prefer. In the end, it's not about the theoretical superiority of any one approach, it's about what sounds better and this is a very personal thing. As someone who values transparency and resolution above all, I have yet to hear anything better than a Chord DAVE combined with an M-scaler.