Introducing Olympus & Olympus I/O - A new perspective on modern music playback

[VPN]

So here’s my next fun question of the day. My wife told me that my NAS which was in the downstairs bedroom had to go. It was functioning perfectly wired into my home router. My original goal was to have my NAS in my sound room powered via the Taiko DCD but my LPS did not have enough power to drive the DCD Taiko router and switch and now my 4 bay Qnap TS-464 with 4 x 4 TB HDD I reached out to Alex Crespi from Uptone Audio to inquire about doing all of the above with his JS-2 LPS. He said there were no doubts in his mind it would be up to the task and suggested either powering the NAS via the DCD or via the 2nd rail on the JS-2. I was interested in using the DCD for no other reason than seeing what sonic change if any would be imparted using different outputs on the DCD.

So here’s my question. Who is powering their NAS via the DCD and which out put are you using and have you tried different outlets with their different filters. If so what difference if any are you hearing

Presently I am using DEFAULT 2 and things sound terrific. Has anyone tried different other than DEFAULT. If so which ones and what was the difference.

As an aside Alex was dead on re the JS-2. He said I might see some flickering red lights on the rear of the unit which would mean I’m close to maxing out on power. If I ss a solid red light it means the JS-2 could not power all of the above. I’m happy to report that I don’t even see any flickering red light as the JS-2 is up to the task. What a neat little unit for the price. I also purchased two of his DC cables and am very happy either sound.

So who’s done the experiment and what output are you using.

Steve, I am feeding the Taiko Router (alt 2), Taiko switch (default), Synology 923+ 4-bay with two SSDs (alt 1), and the audio fiber modem (default), all with the Taiko DCD with a Zayin Suprareg LPS 12V/6A.

In terms of the DCD outputs, I prioritized the router, then switch, then cable modem, then Nas. I confess that I selected alt2 for the router when I had the Extreme. I have to test again now with the Olympus

I also have a Plixir Statement with two outputs. I have to get a NAS dc cable for it and check if having the Plixir power the NAS (and fiber modem), and thus reducing the load on the Zayin, improves the sound, or not.

 

[Steve Williams]

Steve, I am feeding the Taiko Router (alt 2), Taiko switch (default), Synology 923+ 4-bay with two SSDs (alt 1), and the audio fiber modem (default), all with the Taiko DCD with a Zayin Suprareg LPS 12V/6A.

In terms of the DCD outputs, I prioritized the router, then switch, then cable modem, then Nas. I confess that I selected alt2 for the router when I had the Extreme. I have to test again now with the Olympus.

Those are the same settings for router and switch. I’m using default so far from DCD to my NAS Is that an arbitrary setting by you from DCD to NAS or does it sound better

 

[VPN]

Those are the same settings for router and switch. I’m using default so far from DCD to my NAS Is that an arbitrary setting by you from DCD to NAS or does it sound better

Arbitrary. I just used the two filtered outputs that were left, one for the Nas, and one for the fiber modem. I never switched the outputs used for nas/fiber modem to hear which sounded better.

 

[pleroma]

It also has been my experience that format in excess of 24/96 invariably sounds dull (I have many 24/192 albums; none sounds good). I converted 2 albums (of big symphonies) from 24/192 to 24/44.1 via dbpoweramp software and heard an audible improvement (more transparent or less congested). I intend to convert all 24/192 files to 24/44.1 going forward. Also my experience that WAV sounds better than DSD (WAV more vivid, vibrant, sharper) even for a sigma-delta DAC like Horizon. Albums with the best sound are mostly in red book format (even with Extreme). I am amazed that some albums recorded in the mid- or late-1950s sound more vivid or immediate than albums recorded recently in native 24/192 or 24/96 (e.g., Monteux's RCA Tchaikovsky symphonies, otherwise dated, compared to the latest hi-res ones which all sound lumpy, including Honeck's recordings on Reference label).

I've found it's impossible to generalize based on format. Too many variables, esp. with classical. But I've often found the retail format most native to the master sounds best. There's much more to unpack here, but since it comes up often, and it's slightly off-topic, I won't go on.

 

[pleroma]

Ive heard Marty's .wav files and the compared flac files and they really are a big uptick

something is sticking out in my aging mind. I somehow remember Marty bringing .wav to the attention of the XDMS developers and beta testers on Discord. I seem to remember that at some point there was a backend up date where there was a huge uptick in SQ and rumor had it that XDMS wa converting files to .wav, or is that just a fabric of my aging mind. It's been a while since I have used XDMS but somehow this sits in my mind

Not your "aging mind" Steve. I've seen my flacs change to wav in the XDMS queue.

Unless that's my aging mind

 

[pleroma]

It’s coming in the future, Q2 or Q3 2025.

I recall reading it couldn't happen because of the integration of software and hardware.

 

[Moladiego]

I've found it's impossible to generalize based on format. Too many variables, esp. with classical. But I've often found the retail format most native to the master sounds best. There's much more to unpack here, but since it comes up often, and it's slightly off-topic, I won't go on.

Obviously, it may be the result of different systems or sound preferences. So far my ears prefer red book or files lower than 24/96, PCM over DSD, in my system. But I will determine again when I have the Olympus. Have to rely on my ears in the end and let generality or theory go to hell. I converted 2 24/192 albums to 24/44.1 2 days ago because I was not happy with the sound with the 24/192 albums (finding it lumpy) but managed to finish listening to the converted 24/44.1 albums, liking the improved transparency (subtle improvement to which the ears are sensitive). So far, I have not liked a single album in excess of 24/96 in terms of SQ in my big library, which I have many from new or remastered recordings.

 

[pleroma]

Obviously, it may be the result of different systems or sound preferences. So far my ears prefer red book or files lower than 24/96, PCM over DSD, in my system. But I will determine again when I have the Olympus. Have to rely on my ears in the end and let generality or theory go to hell. I converted 2 24/192 albums to 24/44.1 2 days ago because I was not happy with the sound with the 24/192 albums (finding it lumpy) but managed to finish listening to the converted 24/44.1 albums, liking the improved transparency (subtle improvement to which the ears are sensitive). So far, I have not liked a single album in excess of 24/96 in terms of SQ in my big library, which I have many from new or remastered recordings.

Hi Moladiego,

I gravitate to the theoretical and bookish, but more often find myself scratching my head with digital audio. A friend in Switzerland asserts the higher resolutions afford more room for digital filtering. Others suggest there is some feeling of those inaubible frequencies . Regardless, we both prefer the higher resolutions of the Honeck Reference Recordings and the Stereo Sound remasters (ridiculously priced, now as bundles https://www.stereosound-store.jp/c/music/bd14-bundle). Other examples, which contradict what I said about the native format, are the Szell and Bernstein Sony DSD masters, released in 24/192 a few years back. Fantastic! So the friend and I, with very different systems and preferences, agree the assessment is made on the individual release, of course a function of what's available. A rep from Deutsche Grammophon told me 24/192 is their standard format. Cynics will say "so they can make money." But then, I ask myself why Emil Berliner Studios chose 24/192 as their "working master", from which they derive the other commercial formats, including DSD. The EBS Tonmeister insists he is independent of the label.

 

[Moladiego]

Hi Moladiego,

I gravitate to the theoretical and bookish, but more often find myself scratching my head with digital audio. A friend in Switzerland asserts the higher resolutions afford more room for digital filtering. Others suggest there is some feeling of those inaubible frequencies . Regardless, we both prefer the higher resolutions of the Honeck Reference Recordings and the Stereo Sound remasters (ridiculously priced, now as bundles https://www.stereosound-store.jp/c/music/bd14-bundle). Other examples, which contradict what I said about the native format, are the Szell and Bernstein Sony DSD masters, released in 24/192 a few years back. Fantastic! So the friend and I, with very different systems and preferences, agree the assessment is made on the individual release, of course a function of what's available. A rep from Deutsche Grammophon told me 24/192 is their standard format. Cynics will say "so they can make money." But then, I ask myself why Emil Berliner Studios chose 24/192 as their "working master", from which they derive the other commercial formats, including DSD. The EBS Tonmeister insists he is independent of the label.

I have most of the hi-res alums you referenced above, but love none of them in terms of SQ. I know that many studios now record natively at 24/192 (smaller or orchestra labels sometimes record in DSD256, like LSO Live series, BIS or Channel labels, some of which I have). They record that way to give themselves all the options for future, but it does not mean necessarily that the native format sounds best in one's own system. Again, my ears and system consistently prefer WAV lower than 24/96, WAV over FLAC, etc. For example, I have Honeck/PSO's Bruckner 9 (which is not a great performance) on Reference label in all formats (DSD256, the native format, DSD64, 24/192, 24/96, 16/44.1 released by Reference) - I like the 24/96 the best, but it is not a recording which sounds nearly as good as some old analog recording reissued in redbook (like Bohm/BRSO's glorious Bruckner 7 1977 live performance on Audite) (in fact, I love none of the recent Reference recordings I have, none). Another example: I compared Honeck/PSO's live Tchaikovsky 5 (in 24/96) with Monteux/BSO's 1958 RCA studio recording (red book), while the newer album has more dynamic range etc., the old one sounds more live and natural - the lush and gut-wrenching strings of Boston Symphony overwhelmed me; the brass has more presence and impact; Monteux is also heads and shoulders over Honeck in terms of performance). All personal.

 

[wil]

yes, i've been on my hobby horse about wav versus flac for years now, going back to my hqplayer days.
i've gone in to see BobV at Rhapsody a few times this year to listen to the extreme and olympus.

over the past few years, my tests with the extreme had convincingly showed me (plus Ed and assorted friends) that WAV was superior to FLAC or qobuz, using my totaldac rigs. this is not the case for every track but on many, it is very obvious to hear.
setup: extreme--usb to sotm reclock/convert to aes/ebu--totaldac reclocker--totaldac triunity
(no live clock upgrade yet)

my first visit this year we compared: (with his wonderful allsyvox speakers, xdmi analog with about 7-10 days burn in)
1. extreme--usb-esoteric dac (WAV)
2. olympus+io--xdmi analog (qobuz)

in comparing 1 and 2, it was unexpectedly close with 2 having a wider soundstage but not blowing extreme+wav out of the water. i'd give 2 a SQ gain of 20-30%, not at all what i had expected. because now we know the xdmi-analog needs more time to break in, plus qobuz requires flac decoding, i can't really assess how much the olympus+io was limited by burn in time versus flac decoding.

my second visit (same speakers) was olympus+io only, comparing WAV local files and the same music on qobuz, but now there had been over a month of burn in time for the xdmi analog. here the WAV was, as BobV said, "night and day" better. my objective for the visit to rhapsody was to determine if the WAV/FLAC SQ delta still existed in the Olympus and it clearly did. since the olympus is so very low noise, i'm quite surprised the added computation processing to decode flac could be audible. my guess is something else is going on. or is it somehow system dependent?

after this, we all went downstairs to listen to bobV's wonderful SET driven horns, using the xdmi-analog output and only listening to local WAV files. this was alsolutely EXQUISITE, just stunning. we didn't even try streaming and went into pure listening (not analyzing) mode. as steve williams has said, 'you can't unring the bell'. the sound was so good that i found myself wanting an olympus even though it is way out of my price comfort zone. i can't wait for some of that trickle down goodness to come to the extreme.

i've since done a little bit screwing around with various music converter programs but really have not been able to draw useful conclusions and i do not have the requisite skills (or patience?) or tools to dig into the formatting of music files, bit level comparisons, decoding and buffering strategies in software etc. Ed et taiko are aware of this and are looking into it. i trust they will get to the bottom of this. i've been in the background on this for a while and hope that since the cat is now out of the bag, we'll have some patience while taiko digs themselves out from under a pile of silver anodization. i expect 2025 to bring even better SQ, particularly for streaming.

miscellaneous:
--a great track to use is the Weaver's "guantanamera" from their live concert at carnegie hall (Red Book version, i don't like the 24-96 version)
--my default music converter has always been dbpoweramp which, after fixing metadata in a tag editor, i use to convert flac sources to wav.
--my dac is limited to 24-192 so higher bit rates are a non-issue here.
--all my SQ evaluations of WAV/FLAC have been red book only, which is the vast majority of the music i listen to.
--if everyone had ordered a black olympus, by now we'd probably have them all shipped AND the wav/flac fix available!!!!

When you, and @oldmustang, talk of Taiko potentially coming up with a solution to providing WAV files through the Olympus:

— Are you referring to decompression /conversion of only local Flac files stored on a NAS, or also steaming Qobuz Flac files?

— And, would this be possible through Roon or more likely through a future version of XDMS?

Is the primary challenge likely to be finding a method to run the Flac to WAV decompression/conversion (in real time)on the Olympus without creating noise on the signal?

 

[cat6man]

When you, and @oldmustang, talk of Taiko potentially coming up with a solution to providing WAV files through the Olympus:

— Are you referring to decompression /conversion of only local Flac files stored on a NAS, or also steaming Qobuz Flac files?

— And, would this be possible through Roon or more likely through a future version of XDMS?

Is the primary challenge likely to be finding a method to run the Flac to WAV decompression/conversion (in real time)on the Olympus without creating noise on the signal?

@wil
1. both local and streaming flac. chez moi, they sound pretty similar so the incremental effects of streaming flac vs. local flac have been sorted.
2. i can't say (or even guess) really, until the exact mechanism gets determined. as someone once said, "something is going on, but we don't know what it is, do we mr. wil"
3. same as 2, tbd.

 

[pleroma]

I have most of the hi-res alums you referenced above, but love none of them in terms of SQ. I know that many studios now record natively at 24/192 (smaller or orchestra labels sometimes record in DSD256, like LSO Live series, BIS or Channel labels, some of which I have). They record that way to give themselves all the options for future, but it does not mean necessarily that the native format sounds best in one's own system. Again, my ears and system consistently prefer WAV lower than 24/96, WAV over FLAC, etc. For example, I have Honeck/PSO's Bruckner 9 (which is not a great performance) on Reference label in all formats (DSD256, the native format, DSD64, 24/192, 24/96, 16/44.1 released by Reference) - I like the 24/96 the best, but it is not a recording which sounds nearly as good as some old analog recording reissued in redbook (like Bohm/BRSO's glorious Bruckner 7 1977 live performance on Audite) (in fact, I love none of the recent Reference recordings I have, none). Another example: I compared Honeck/PSO's live Tchaikovsky 5 (in 24/96) with Monteux/BSO's 1958 RCA studio recording (red book), while the newer album has more dynamic range etc., the old one sounds more live and natural - the lush and gut-wrenching strings of Boston Symphony overwhelmed me; the brass has more presence and impact; Monteux is also heads and shoulders over Honeck in terms of performance). All personal.

Okay, but with classical, for me and others, it's not always about cherry-picking SQ, but loving a specific performance of a great piece of music, and then in the best SQ available. Indeed all personal.

Happy holidays.

 

[Moladiego]

Okay, but with classical, for me and others, it's not always about cherry-picking SQ, but loving a specific performance of a great piece of music, and then in the best SQ available. Indeed all personal.

Happy holidays.

Thank you, same to you. That's why I cherish many mono recordings, such as those by the incomparable Furtwangler/BPO or /WPO live recordings made during the war years. Love recordings by Monteux, Fricsay, Kempe, Klemperer, Bohm, Kubelik, Munch, Jochum, Reiner, Szell, etc. made in the golden years of 50s to 70s. Many (or most) new recordings do not stack up to the great recordings made in the last century in terms of performance (and often even in SQ). The great Jochum Bruckner recordings on DG (esp. 4, 6, 7, which have not been surpassed and have few equals, even in terms of natural SQ).

 

[cat6man]

here is my link where you can download the WAV and FLAC versions of Guantanamera. I've cut off the end of the track so there should be no music license violation.

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

 

[MarkusBarkus]

...well the good folks at Cardas finally got my adapters out the door. My pre is balanced-only (can add SE module) so I just-now added the adapters to use the Taiko analog output into the WestminsterLab Quest pre after warming them up for an hour in my pocket.

Yep. That's the business now.

USB sounds very good from the O into the MSB Ref into the Q. But this is another variety of fruit altogether.

More of everything you always wanted. I give it two-thumbs up right out of the pocket warmer, with Cardas Clear adapters.

In a couple of weeks the MSB daughter board will come along and then we'll have an old-fashioned gunfight. Can't wait.

 

[pleroma]

Does anyone with an Olympus/XDMI-MSB shipping have a Cascade DAC?

 

[DW101]

No; Select Dac here.

 

[Kingsrule]

Does anyone with an Olympus/XDMI-MSB shipping have a Cascade DAC?

Yes.
I expect my Olympus/MSB XDMI to ship any day....

 

[Taiko Audio]

Yes.
I expect my Olympus/MSB XDMI to ship any day....

Indeed, the MSB modules have arrived, we’re testing all of them now, we do need to make some minor modifications to the mounting brackets.

They’re performing really well. The improvement over USB is very similar to the XDMI Lampizator link, which is an interesting datapoint as MSB PRO ISL connects over fiber and Lampizator over copper. I still have to try a copper DAC cable in stead of fiber, but I suspect others may get around to that before me

 

[MarkusBarkus]

...you get us the modules and we'll get you the data, Emile! Can't wait.