Taiko Audio SGM Extreme : the Crème de la Crème

Christiaan Punter said:
Sure, that is a valid argument but that is not the only influential factor. And Emile's general "Bottom shelf recommendation" notwithstanding, there are several other factors that come into play. The solidity of a support system is usually indeed one of the more important indicators but depending on the system or user preferences, there can also be "too much" solidity, leading to subjective damping or deadening of the performance. And there can be various other contemplations and circumstances when matching a server or other component to an "ideal" support surface. An Artesania Exoteryc rack, for instance, works in reverse, with its rack-inside-rack system being the most solid and sounding most solid, dynamic, and lively at the top. In general, I am personally careful not to recommend a single best solution and usually advise experimenting with placement.
Click to expand...
Christiaan you’re making broad statements about racks. I suggested you try mine but was unable. I maintain that putting mine on the top shelf has no negative sonic issues. Certainly your comment about being too rigid has no bearing wrt my rack.
 
wil said:
Are jitter and latency a result of, or related to, power consumption?
Click to expand...

Although lower latency equipment can use more power I’d say no.

An interesting example:

3 antenna lengths for Wi-Fi with the same (lowest possible) transmission power on the Wi-Fi transmitter, seated about 20ft away from the router.

A quick speedtest to the ISP:

1) Smallest antenna:
Download speed: 1.50Mbps
Upload speed: 0.41Mbps
Ping: 20ms
Jitter: 20ms

2) Medium size antenna:
Download speed: 7.26Mbps
Upload speed: 3.64Mbps
Ping: 8ms
Jitter: 13ms

3) Largest antenna, oriented horizontally:
Download speed: 11.9Mbps
Upload speed: 9.37Mbps
Ping: 9ms
Jitter: 14ms

4) The same large antenna but oriented vertically:
Download speed: 14.7Mbps
Upload speed: 15.6Mbps
Ping: 7ms
Jitter: 1ms

They all do sound different. Interestingly I’m torn between 1 and 4 as my favourite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nils, cmarin and Armsan
Christiaan Punter said:
Having performed intensive tests with local versus streaming using Roon and XDMS, I can confirm that streaming sounds very nearly as good as local. The same applies for downloaded files versus streaming those same files. Streaming sounds so good in fact that I have no problems using Qobuz for my reviews and have absolutely no issues with it, neither for enjoyment nor for deep-dive resolution/performance tests. There is a subtle difference, but I can only tell in AB tests. That said, for XDMS, we are working on implementing functionality (currently tested as part of the Alpha release) to reduce or even remove the hurdles thrown up by streaming FLAC. I have also carried out tests with this and the result is that the differences have become so very small that it becomes basically an academic matter.
Click to expand...
Everyone who has listened to my system in the past 3 months has been unable to tell the difference between same file streamed or from my internal library
 
  • Like
Reactions: DW101
Steve Williams said:
Christiaan you’re making broad statements about racks. I suggested you try mine but was unable. I maintain that putting mine on the top shelf has no negative sonic issues. Certainly your comment about being too rigid has no bearing wrt my rack.
Click to expand...
Hi Steve, I'm not stating anything definitive about placement in racks, in fact, I am saying the opposite, that it's relative, the results may vary, and one should assess each situation on its own and try a few variables. My statement about a support system potentially being too rigid pertains to instances where I found the bottom level of racks can sometimes lead to a stringent/restrained quality in the music whereas top levels usually do not impart that quality. But again, these are some of my experiences and I am not saying they will be the same for all equipment, all combinations, or all ears. Further to your suggestion that I try Critical Mass racks or footers, I did actually check but the brand is indeed more or less dormant in the Netherlands and I cannot get any samples for testing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ctydwn and Steve williams
Taiko Audio said:
Although lower latency equipment can use more power I’d say no.

An interesting example:

3 antenna lengths for Wi-Fi with the same (lowest possible) transmission power on the Wi-Fi transmitter, seated about 20ft away from the router.

A quick speedtest to the ISP:

1) Smallest antenna:
Download speed: 1.50Mbps
Upload speed: 0.41Mbps
Ping: 20ms
Jitter: 20ms

2) Medium size antenna:
Download speed: 7.26Mbps
Upload speed: 3.64Mbps
Ping: 8ms
Jitter: 13ms

3) Largest antenna, oriented horizontally:
Download speed: 11.9Mbps
Upload speed: 9.37Mbps
Ping: 9ms
Jitter: 14ms

4) The same large antenna but oriented vertically:
Download speed: 14.7Mbps
Upload speed: 15.6Mbps
Ping: 7ms
Jitter: 1ms

They all do sound different. Interestingly I’m torn between 1 and 4 as my favourite.
Click to expand...
Intuitively - 4) 'should' be best as it has the lowest value for Ping (indicating the lowest amount of upstream network congestion and/or route changes) and hence the lowest measured Jitter-value.

But - could it be that the actual processing of traffic inside the Router which is lowest in 1) 1,50 Mbps & 0.41 Mbps vs the much higher throughput 14.7 Mpbs & 15.6 Mbps for 4) is leading to some audible artefacts?

Any network engineer would be happy with the measurements for 4) - but the audiophile perspective is different - as long as streaming is working and interaction with Extreme via the control app and the dedicated WiFi works if it sounds better 1) is better!

Interesting findings - indicating that having a separate, dedicated audiophile network might be the way to go (this is not the first instance, having a dedicated power-line isolating HiFi equipment from the rest of the house's noisy equipment also makes sense).

Look forward to final results!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DW101 and oldmustang
Nils said:
Intuitively - 4) 'should' be best as it has the lowest value for Ping (indicating the lowest amount of upstream network congestion and/or route changes) and hence the lowest measured Jitter-value.

But - could it be that the actual processing of traffic inside the Router which is lowest in 1) 1,50 Mbps & 0.41 Mbps vs the much higher throughput 14.7 Mpbs & 15.6 Mbps for 4) is leading to some audible artefacts?

Any network engineer would be happy with the measurements for 4) - but the audiophile perspective is different - as long as streaming is working and interaction with Extreme via the control app and the dedicated WiFi works if it sounds better 1) is better!

Interesting findings - indicating that having a separate, dedicated audiophile network might be the way to go (this is not the first instance, having a dedicated power-line isolating HiFi equipment from the rest of the house's noisy equipment also makes sense).

Look forward to final results!
Click to expand...
How about using 4 as it has lowest jitter
and limit the anthenna speed by softwere to 1.5 mbps ?
But I understand there will be some jitter penalty of doing so.

We can have thousands of crazy ideas here but at the end Emile is going to pick the best or he will find a way to have 2 or 3 choices we could have a selection on like he did with DC power distributor.
Just give him a time to test it all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Armsan, John T, MusicFellow and 2 others
@Taiko Audio did you try a non omni directional antenna, like a beam antenna? I have been wondering if a point to point setup could help minimize 'collateral damage'.
(we all know where the receiver is when sitting in our listening position so we do not need to platter wifi in all directions do we)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taiko Audio
Nils said:
Intuitively - 4) 'should' be best as it has the lowest value for Ping (indicating the lowest amount of upstream network congestion and/or route changes) and hence the lowest measured Jitter-value.

But - could it be that the actual processing of traffic inside the Router which is lowest in 1) 1,50 Mbps & 0.41 Mbps vs the much higher throughput 14.7 Mpbs & 15.6 Mbps for 4) is leading to some audible artefacts?

Any network engineer would be happy with the measurements for 4) - but the audiophile perspective is different - as long as streaming is working and interaction with Extreme via the control app and the dedicated WiFi works if it sounds better 1) is better!

Interesting findings - indicating that having a separate, dedicated audiophile network might be the way to go (this is not the first instance, having a dedicated power-line isolating HiFi equipment from the rest of the house's noisy equipment also makes sense).

Look forward to final results!
Click to expand...

Something I did not share before on the Router design is the processor selection. NASA or military grade hardware is something (ab)used in Hi-Fi to create an aura of specialty so I'm hesitant to use this kind of terminology, but we do use a military grade security processor. The reason for this is this type of processor is security hardened to an excessive degree, you may or may not be aware that DATA can be stolen / reconstructed by measuring fluctuations in processor / data line emissions and power draw. The processor & subsystem we use has constant emissions and power draw, no fluctuations. This is the highest obtainable security standard, which we arguably not need, but the constant power draw and emissions are excellent for audio. This means that data transmission does not translate into altering EMI and/or powerline disturbances.

I'm mentioning this now as this very likely changes the expected outcome of parameters influences on sound quality relative to network gear which lacks this type of extreme security hardening.

Another aspect related to Wi-Fi is we don't allow the transmitter to automatically increase transmission power resulting in these direct differences in Antennas used. Normally a W-Fi transmitter would just boost transmission power when antenna 1 is used to get to the figures of antenna 4.

The surprise though is that Antenna 1 and 4 sound best, with 3 slightly behind 4, but 2 is significantly behind the rest, where I was expecting a gradual increase from either 1 to 4 or 4 to 1. So there's something else going on here. Lot's more antennas to test. Interesting times!
 
  • Like
Reactions: cat6man, ctydwn, Audire and 13 others
MarcelNL said:
@Taiko Audio did you try a non omni directional antenna, like a beam antenna? I have been wondering if a point to point setup could help minimize 'collateral damage'.
(we all know where the receiver is when sitting in our listening position so we do not need to platter wifi in all directions do we)
Click to expand...

We have a few tests left to perform, but yes clearly there is some directivity involved extrapolating from the difference between antenna option 3 and 4.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldmustang, Armsan and QuantumWave
Taiko Audio said:
We have a few tests left to perform, but yes clearly there is some directivity involved extrapolating from the difference between antenna option 3 and 4.
Click to expand...
interesting stuff! Though would the difference between 3 and 4 not rather point at polarization than directivity of the resuting 'beam'? (just wondering)
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldmustang
MarcelNL said:
interesting stuff! Though would the difference between 3 and 4 not rather point at polarization than directivity of the resuting 'beam'? (just wondering)
Click to expand...

I did rerun that experiment with placing the router upright on its front, then #3 replicates #4’s results. I did not mention that as I didn’t expect this kind of feedback :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldmustang, Armsan, DW101 and 2 others
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Johan K, Pokey77, oldmustang and 2 others
  • Like
Reactions: Bobvin, QuantumWave, 2ndLiner and 3 others
  • Like
Reactions: oldmustang, QuantumWave, 2ndLiner and 3 others
It is clear that Emile is selling audio equipment just so he has an excuse to buy new toys.

Congrats on the new machiner.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Bobvin, Pokey77, EuroDriver and 4 others
Sounds like we may get two antenna lengths to try in our router packages :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Christiaan Punter
Taiko Audio Extreme Music Server
Replies
182
Views
24K
Taiko Audio
hesavary
H
Christiaan Punter
Taiko Audio Extreme Router
Replies
243
Views
27K
Taiko Audio
nonesup
nonesup
Christiaan Punter
Taiko Audio XDMS - Extreme Direct Music Server Software
Replies
397
Views
52K
Taiko Audio
Rhapsody
Rhapsody

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

Home Forums

User Menu

Login
Top Bottom