[miketlse]

I’ll give Duke a go

Didn't realise that you were a Genesis fan.

 

[514077]

I really liked noticing over time that the M Scaler thread seems more active than most other high-end threads with music suggestions and reports of subjective enjoyment of certain pieces, new ones as well as rediscoveries in our library.

It appears that the HMS helps in reconciling the 'music lover' and 'gear lover' within us audiophiles quite nicely

Below are my hits for today

That's one of the reasons I subscribe here. The people and their musical picks.

 

[ray-dude]

For mScale'd piano lovers, another delight is one of the more recent one mic recording from Frans de Rond, Juraj Stanik's "I Wonder"

https://www.soundliaison.com/index.php/494-juraj-stanik-i-wonder

Every Sound Liaison release is special (I own them all, and purchase them all on day one release), but this album really really captures a real piano amazingly well. For non-mScaler folks, they alsoo offer the original DXD recording (24/352) so you can get a taste of what us mScaler zealots are going on and on about.

I love all the one mic recordings, but honestly, every album in their catalog is a treasure.

 

[ZappaMan]

There’s no harm in allowing another man to enter you, musically.

 

[Triode User]

Regarding ferrite cores. Dipping my toes into the rabbit hole, I see a comprehensive product catalog of Laird ferrite cores, which are available from Mouser -- PDF link.
Their ferrite cores come in three categories:

• Low frequency
• Broadband
• High frequency

You can see the impedance graphs for each on page 4 of that PDF.
Which would be most appropriate for use with the M Scaler, I wonder? I'm leaning towards a mix of broadband and high frequency, but that's just a guess...

I will try to give general guidance but my designs are the result of many months of trials of different constructions and hundreds of listening tests so you might need a bit of time and patience before hitting on the best result.

Having been through this process when I first popped my head above the ferrite parapet I learned by trial end error that whilst there are general rules for the application of the ferrites on cables they do not always produce the same results. For instance two of my types of cables have exactly the same number and spec of ferrites, also the two 75 ohm cables used although different are exactly the same outside diameter and yet the final cable constructions with the ferrites sound different. The only difference is the inner cable construction and the type of BNC connectors used. I have even found that the spacing between the ferrites makes a difference to the sound.

Although some people report success with clip on ferrites I found them better with Blu2 and not so successful with the Mscaler compared to solid core ferrites. This has variously been postulated as being due to resonance at the high frequencies or even due to the gaps in the clip on ferrites acting as a focussing slot to beam the RF back into the very cables which one is attempting to filter. The latter theory was suggested by an RF engineer who has spent a life working with RF so it might have some credence. Rob Watts also noticed and commented on the relative lack of success with clip on ferrites with the Mscaler and he wondered whether there might be some interaction between the MScaler's extra built in RF filtering / isolation and the clip on ferrites.

One advantage of using solid core ferrites of course is that with careful matching of cable and ferrites sizes one can reduce the air gap (or ideally have no air gap) between the ferrites and the cable compared to clip on ferrites which always have some gap between the cable and the ferrite material..

Anyway, for a start I would suggest you head towards the HF ferrites at first rather than bother with broadband. Try various combinations. Start at maybe 10 per cable then keep adding them. If you can't hear a difference you probably have too few on each cable. Once you can hear a difference keep adding more until you stop getting an improvement (remember again that improvement = a darker or smoother sound). Depending on the ferrites you are using you might need 30 or even 40 ferrites before you stop getting any improvement if they are not a particularly effective type. This is where a well tuned ear becomes useful to search out and hear the difference in darkness between different combinations of construction and remembering all the time that darkness or smoothness in the sound is the guiding light that you need to search out. In fact I use a track which has a tendency to be on the harsh side of the spectrum anyway and with any significant RF noise it soon becomes unbearable in terms of fatigue and brittleness of sound.

 

[ray-dude]

In fact I use a track which has a tendency to be on the harsh side of the spectrum anyway and with any significant RF noise it soon becomes unbearable in terms of fatigue and brittleness of sound.

What's your favorite test track Nick? I also have a group of favorites and similar strategy for quick checks.

In particular, I lean heavy on Handel: Messiah - And the Glory oof the Lord by Dunedin Consort (Linn) for the spatial presence of the individuals in the choir (height, depth, width) and room, but also for borderline harshness in key sections. Taming RF and better power is very clearly audible to me.

For more nuanced evals, Arnesen: Magnificat - Fecit potentiam by TrondheimSolistene (2L) has been and continues to be go to to assess "emotional connection" (along with all the amazing spatial richness...as RF goes down, the sense of being in that church with that choir and ensemble on that day goes through the roof)

 

[Birdboy01]

For the 70's fusion listeners, Mscaler is able to make even the busiest of tracks sound discernable per instrument.
Specifically, Jean-Luc-Ponty on Taste Of Passion" which when previously played at high volumes presented a harmonics nightmare with bass, synths AND thick violin reverb played in lowerF octave. Analog recording equipment didn't have the advanced EQ shelving to isolate when the instrument stopped and its corresponding effects began.
MScaler @ 1m taps magically blankets all this. You can now literally hear Ponty lift the bow off the string as the effects spin off into a delightful infinite mind-altering decay. As previous posters have made mention, you become immersed in what you missed instead of critiquing what is missing. Bravo Chord!! Bravo...

 

[llamaluv]

I will try to give general guidance [...]

Thanks very much!

 

[Triode User]

This is a very deep and important question. We know RF in the 2-2.5GHz is audible with mScaled signals (353/384kHz on each BNC line). Get a WiFi base station configured for 2.4Ghz and put it next to your DAC and you'll hear it. From the early ferrite experiments, ferrites targeted to the 2-2.5GHz range had a nice positive impact. I never got to point where it was too much (just kept adding ferrites, and eventually I couldn't hear any more difference).

But what happens as you filter more and more frequencies closer and closer to 353/384kHz? As you filter more and more high frequency components, wave forms get softer and softer (lower rise times, less sharp transitions, etc). At what point does the wave form of the digital signal start to impact SQ? With the phase lock loop on the receiver side, do the details of the waveform matter at all?

The reason this is curious for me is that Rob has pretty clearly demonstrated that jitter doesn't do anything material with his DACs. However, server changes are still audible, even via optical inputs. If jitter isn't the root cause, the only things left are waveform signal integrity changes (rise times, overshoot/undershoot, amplitude variations/modulation, etc) or some air transited RF, or some mechanism I haven't thought of yet. Some how whatever this factor is is inducing something on the receiver/DAC side. The alternative is some air transited something impacting the DAC, but I'm more bearish on that route (there would be too much room to room variability...reports of SQ changes with server changes seem to me to be too consistent for that).

If we figure this piece out, I'm convinced it will be the X factor that lead to some optimal digital source design/implementation. I'm very much looking forward to hearing what Dan hears and sees in his experiments, and maybe what Nick found out in his experiments with different ferrites and configurations (I trust Nick's ear for RF impact on Chord DACs to be amongst the most practiced and refined out there).

Ray, now to your question. I purposely select ferrites that have an operating frequency well above 353/384kHz and also ones that have quite a steep fall off below their target frequencies. I can therefore easily get to the point where I have added enough ferrites to filter the damaging RF noise without seeming to affect the 353/384kHz signals. Indeed although I mostly use 20 ferrites I have tried 40 of the same ferrites per cable and whilst it did not give any extra darkness, neither did it seem to degrade any other aspect of the music. So in other words, I do not think I have ever got to the point where I was degrading the 353/384kHz signals so much that it had any effect. Certainly not introducing any pops or crackles which is what happens when the dual signal loses lock and then regains lock on.

What's your favorite test track Nick? I also have a group of favorites and similar strategy for quick checks.
In particular, I lean heavy on Handel: Messiah - And the Glory oof the Lord by Dunedin Consort (Linn) for the spatial presence of the individuals in the choir (height, depth, width) and room, but also for borderline harshness in key sections. Taming RF and better power is very clearly audible to me.
For more nuanced evals, Arnesen: Magnificat - Fecit potentiam by TrondheimSolistene (2L) has been and continues to be go to to assess "emotional connection" (along with all the amazing spatial richness...as RF goes down, the sense of being in that church with that choir and ensemble on that day goes through the roof)

A track which I use all the time is from the Marcus Miller album 'Laid Black'. I use the first track called Trip Trap and play it as loud as I can stand with the base system and then if I change something it is normally pretty obvious whether things have got better or worse. If they have got worse I soon feel like turning the volume down (or even off if it has got that much worse), if they have got better everything will sound much smoother and I get the distinct feeling that I want to turn the volume up even more. For anyone with a speaker system, you will know if you are listening at the same volume as me because you can feel the bass guitar through your stomach!

Edit :- Just to say that in all this process I never ask myself whether I 'prefer' this of that set up as all I want to answer is whether there is either 'more' or 'less 'evidence of RF noise. In other words which sounds darker or smoother. That simplifies the process of evaluation.

I will try some of your tracks. Thanks.

 

[kennyb123]

This is a very deep and important question. We know RF in the 2-2.5GHz is audible with mScaled signals (353/384kHz on each BNC line). Get a WiFi base station configured for 2.4Ghz and put it next to your DAC and you'll hear it. From the early ferrite experiments, ferrites targeted to the 2-2.5GHz range had a nice positive impact. I never got to point where it was too much (just kept adding ferrites, and eventually I couldn't hear any more difference).

But what happens as you filter more and more frequencies closer and closer to 353/384kHz? As you filter more and more high frequency components, wave forms get softer and softer (lower rise times, less sharp transitions, etc). At what point does the wave form of the digital signal start to impact SQ? With the phase lock loop on the receiver side, do the details of the waveform matter at all?

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. The reason I asked is because I tried an experiment with an RF blocker I happened to have on hand; a pair of these: http://powerwraps.com/

My guess is these wraps filter at a lower frequency as they really mucked with that sound. They initially resulted in a darker sound - but it was a step backwards in transparency. I was surprised by how much the sound changed - for the better - when I removed them.

I’m now experimenting with a more moderate application of these in that I have my coax cables running through only about a quarter of the wrap. It seems to have stripped away a bit of hardness without doing any harm. Next step will be to obtain some HF ferrites to see what effect they have.

Thanks to you and @Triode User for your great contributions here. Much appreciated.

 

[mlxx]

What goes down the cable will be lot higher than 384kHz.
384.4kHz x 32bits = 12.3Mbps per channel.
So you want a ferrite that targets the 2GHz range and stays away from 12MHz, the HF ones look best.

Edit: For the mscaler it runs at 768kHz per BNC cable so double that above.

 

[musickid]

Dual bnc 384khz for each individual cable unless i misunderstand the above stated point.

 

[dmance]

What goes down the cable will be lot higher than 384kHz.
384.4kHz x 32bits = 12.3Mbps per channel.
So you want a ferrite that targets the 2GHz range and stays away from 12MHz, the HF ones look best.

Edit: For the mscaler it runs at 768kHz per BNC cable so double that above.

No, not quite. Check your facts please.
SPDIF is 24bit and biphase coding overhead brings the bitrate in each half of a DX signal closer to 50Mbits/sec. Nyquist theory says you need a channel capacity of double that to pass. Two cables, two streams at this rate give you the full DX rate.
OptoDX has a steep filter above 100mhz to stop passage of any and all high frequency noise, plus it has inherent optical galvanic isolation.

 

[Triode User]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. The reason I asked is because I tried an experiment with an RF blocker I happened to have on hand; a pair of these: http://powerwraps.com/
My guess is these wraps filter at a lower frequency as they really mucked with that sound. They initially resulted in a darker sound - but it was a step backwards in transparency. I was surprised by how much the sound changed - for the better - when I removed them.
I’m now experimenting with a more moderate application of these in that I have my coax cables running through only about a quarter of the wrap. It seems to have stripped away a bit of hardness without doing any harm. Next step will be to obtain some HF ferrites to see what effect they have.
Thanks to you and @Triode User for your great contributions here. Much appreciated.

If something quotes a patent I always like to read it.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US4885555A/en?oq=4885555

If these are RF filters then in my book there is no such thing as taking out too much RF noise. Indeed @dmance with his OPTO-DX and I are aiming to ideally remove all of the RF noise. Is it possible that you have just got used to the false detail from RF noise artifacts and hanker after keeping a bit of it?

 

[kennyb123]

If something quotes a patent I always like to read it.

Smart. Here it is: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4885555A