 The review of the SOTM TX USB Ultra was online for only minutes when the questions arrived whether it would pay to use it in between the SOTM SMS-200 Ultra streamer and the DAC. Well, that looked to me like washing your clothes twice. Let me clarify. The SMS-200 Ultra is a streamer slash network audio interface by SOTM. It essentially is the standard SMS-200 with an added reclocking board. See the link below this video or at the end of this video for a review of both versions. When I reviewed the SMS-200 I immediately bought it. Then the Ultra Edition came out and I thought it might bring improvements but not to the extent it did. The SMS-200 is very good high-fi. The SMS-200 Ultra is from another planet as you might have seen in my video review. It immediately took the place of the standard SMS-200. So why would you place the TX USB Ultra in series with the SMS-200 Ultra? Because it further increases the sound quality according to SOTM. OK, let's set up a test. It wouldn't make sense to use either the SMS-200 Ultra or the TX USB Ultra powered by the switching mode power supply they came with since I know the clear improvement audiophile power supplies bring, being the S&PS-based SPS-500 by SOTM or the S-Booster. My optone Ultra Caps LPS-1 doesn't supply the necessary 9 volts. This time the SOTM distributor didn't supply the SOTM power supply for I have the S-Booster at hand. The difference between the S-Booster and the SOTM, if there is a difference, is such that I wouldn't buy the SOTM if the sound quality is the only criterion. The SOTM does look a lot better, especially when combined with the Ultra products. To get back to the review, I borrowed a second S-Booster power supply so now the SOTM SMS-200 Ultra was fed from an S-Booster 2. I received audio over the AudioQuest Diamond Ethernet cable via an S-Booster powered TP-Link switch from the RoonRock running on a 6th generation Intel NUC i3 that is powered by the standard power supply. In the standard setup, an AudioQuest Diamond USB cable was used to connect it to the MiTech Brooklyn DAC. The interlink to the amp was the Crystal Cable Standard Diamond. Watch my video tweaking my network audio interface for more details. The link is below this video in YouTube and at the end of this video. This setup sounds so well that it would take a lot of money to find a second frontend that sounds just as well. When a Dutch retailer criticized the Brooklyn by saying that his customers found the difference between MQA and non-MQA files on the Brooklyn very small and that they didn't like the Brooklyn anyway, I claimed that it would come fightingly close to a Meridian Ultra DAC. The dealer was a Meridian dealer, but not a MiTech dealer of course. My Dutch colleague Jaap Veenstra of AlphaAudio.nl was interested in that comparison so I agreed to take my setup to his listening studio. He had arranged a Meridian Reference 818 V3 preamp and DAC. The Ultra DAC was not available and this was close enough to make the point. The conclusion in a nutshell was that there was a sound character difference so it's a matter of preference whether you like one over the other. Of course my setup is a stack of boxes while the Meridian is a neat one-box solution while the preamp functions of the Meridian fire exceeds that of the Brooklyn. But it also costs more than double. For those that master the Dutch language, I'll put the link in the show notes. The test simply puts the TX USB Ultra in and out the chain between the SMS-200 Ultra and the MiTech Brooklyn. Since I have only one AudioQuest Diamond USB, I used the USB cable that came with the TX USB Ultra to connect it to the SMS-200 Ultra and used the AudioQuest between the TX and the DAC. The idea being that the last cable to the DAC has the highest quality. In my setup one, any switching mode power supply is connected to a mains filter to not disturb the mains going to the linear power supplies that feed the sensitive digital and analog audio. Please bear in mind that at this level everything and anything can have its influence. Well it must be clear that I didn't expect much of it. It's just that you, the viewer and Azoteam persisted. And I'm glad you did, for it appears indeed that even more quality is hidden in those damn bits. Now let me be clear. If the jump from the SMS-200 to the SMS-200 Ultra was an increase in quality of 100% or so, if you can't express that in percentages, the quality increase adding the TX USB Ultra is another 30%. Not that I want to be negative. I am very positively surprised such an increase is still possible. As long as you don't have the wrong expectations. Now what exactly did improve further? The stereo image became larger while more in focus. Percussion came with even more speed and more detached from the background. The tonality in the lows got even better. Voices became even more real and the background was even blacker. If you consider the sound quality the SMS-200 Ultra offers, I have amazed quite a number very experienced listeners with it. The extra quality the TX USB Ultra adds is amazing. It does wonders on modern recordings like Lonus by Caroline Rose but also on classics like Space Oddity in MQA by David Bowie or Vincent Sondor by Charles Nauvour. Also in MQA. Of course, the period sound remains but because you can listen deeper into the music it fascinates even more. I might even hear more detail than the artist did. Of course, the laws of diminishing return supply here too. Remember the TX USB Ultra is a thousand euros without the power supply. But let me give you an example where it can save you money or even your marriage. The SMS-200 Ultra already made the lows more defined and more tonal. The TX USB Ultra even goes one step further leading to a better low end in my room. I of course sit at the sweet spot when judging equipment but not always on other occasions. Using the Ultra made the area where proper lows can be heard a lot wider. I often hear people say that buying expensive equipment without room treatment is a waste of money. I strongly believe that when you place your speakers properly, see my video on speaker placement and have the right combination of equipment, there is no need for acoustic treatment unless you live in a fish tank. Those quasi-modern houses where the living has glass walls on two or three sides. The next time you visit such a house, please note that coughing or working on high heels already causes an unpleasant sound that mask any conversation. If that is the case, a stereo will sound bad too. But if in the room an acoustic piano can sound good, then why not a stereo? Audio is all about learning and I have learned that in the end our auditory system is capable of so much more than we can understand. I rather have an SMS-200 Ultra than MQA for the effect is so much bigger. But why not stack it? Use the SMS-200 Ultra with the TX USB Ultra and MQA for it really all stacks up to a quality I would not have believed is possible for this kind of money only a few years ago. And I keep searching, assisted by your questions and advices for even better quality at lower price, as long as it is done responsible. So subscribe to this channel or follow me on Twitter, Facebook or Google+. See the show notes for the links. If you like this video, please consider supporting the channel through Patreon or PayPal. Even a dollar a month is appreciated. The links are in the show notes, just as the link to the description of my three setups. Help me to help even more people with their stereo by telling your friends on the web about this channel. I am Hans Beekhuyzen, thank you for watching and see you in the next show or on theHBproject.com. And whatever you do, enjoy the music.