Playing Hi-Res Files with SOtM SMS-200 Ultra Neo

I use a Ethernet to Fiber converter (I don't remember the brand and model)  and a Cisco switch to do the opposite. I feel it makes the sound more relaxed. 

The LAN filters are two Acoustic Revive and one Ever Star.

I find the Jitterbug to do little difference at best when you have a treated signal.

I have the LAN so that all of my own music files are available throughout my network.  A good part of those files are derived from ripping CDs and SACDs.  All of the work on those files is done from a different computer than the one from which I run my basic stereo set-up.  Most of the year I am not hooked up to Qobuz and run my own music.

I see that you use an external USB to I2S converter as the HE-7 doesn't have that function internally.  Have you considered an ethernet to I2S converter taking USB out of the picture all together?  It's likely, though, that if you change your DAC it will have that function built in, and perhaps, as in my own DAC, in a more sophisticated way.

I have though about putting ethernet to fiber converter, fiber, fiber to ethernet converter somewhere in the system.  Before the switch?  After the switch?  With cheap converters do you think that will make a difference? 

Also, coming after the quality of the LPS powered SOtM, does the Jitterbug do very much?  What do you use as LAN filters?

I use a Teradak LPS to power the SMS 200. It's a very good option for the money.

My network is the following:

Router - Ethernet cable - LAN filter - Fiber converter - Fiber - Cisco switch - Ethernet cable - LAN filter - Uptone ER audiophile switch - Ethernet cable - LAN filter - SMS 200 Ultra Neo SE - Audioquest Jitterbug - USB cable - Audio GD DI-20 DDC - I2S cable - Audio GD HE-7 DAC

Router - Ethernet cable - Wifi Router - Wifi - Notebook with Windows 10 as Audinirvana core for the SMS-200.

If the NAS sound pretty similar to Qobuz, why do you have it?

A while back when I was setting this up I did a lot of close listening to determine, for example that hard wiring, even with ordinary cables, performed better than wi-fi.  This was before the SOtM that requires hard wiring.  But I don't do much of that anymore.  I do files as described.  I do Qobuz using BubbleUPnP through the SOtM. So from the router the Qobuz goes to the switch as does the NAS and from that point the path is the same.  To me they sound pretty much the same.

The NAS being accessible from two different computers gives me much flexibility.  Files are downloaded and ripped at an office computer and fed to the NAS and backed up elsewhere.   I use a one disk NAS that costs about $100 + the hard drive that can be SS if you wish.  The NAS need not be the expensive part.  There's a bit of a learning curve dealing with the NAS.

It might be more useful for comments if you laid out your signal path more clearly.  What do you use to power the SOtM?

Hi @melm 

Thanks for the answer.

Yes, I believe that to better the SMS 200 UN you have to spend considerably more money. I think there are cheaper ways of improving SQ that in my case worked, like cables and LAN filters.

By the way, how do you find the SQ of streaming Qobuz vs the Hi-Res files on the NAS?

I also use an SMS-200 Ultra Neo powered by an SBooster unit.  I am very pleased with my set-up and simply pass it along as a data point.

I have about 2 tb of music files, PCM of all sorts and SACD rips to DSD, on a Synology NAS.  It is hard-wired to a router and to a D-Link DGS105 switch powered by an iPower unit hardwired to the SOtM and to a very low power lap top computer.  The computer runs JRiver and I use the SOtM as a DLNA/UPnP Bridge for my files and for Qobuz.  My DAC is a Musetec 005.  Work on my own files and also some listening to files and Qobuz is via a desk top in another part of the house.  Most of my listening is to files.  I do Qobuz from time to time for a month at long intervals in between to listen for candidates to add to collection.

I am very secure in my set-up.  The only question I have had over time is whether there is something to replace the SOtM that would give much more fidelity at a modest cost.  But in climbing the high fidelity ladder, you have to stop somewhere.

Thanks @mahler123 

I will try and then I will post my impressions.

So, I have no experience with the SMS.

To address a few other points you bring up:  I use a Melco N100 as a NAS and also as a player.  As a NAS it feeds a few other streamers in the home.  It was not difficult to set up.  If you use Ethernet, there is virtually nothing to do.  WiFi requires a few extra steps, about the equivalent to setting up a new computer printer.  The Melco will also play Tidal and Qobuz.

   Second, you do have a nice system currently.  Realize that High Resolution Files will sound better, in some circumstances, depending upon the recording, but the improvement is asymptotic, not night and day.  Your present setup is probably so maximized to extract digital data that you may hardly notice much.  So don’t drive yourself crazy trying to improve things.

   Finally, there should be no loss of data for digits traveling from a server in your home to a player.  It is more likely that a server located possibly on another continent, such as Qobuz, might have a bit of dropout sending data to your listening room; however, in practice not much is lost there either