Does TIDAL require a front end such as Roon?

[Boomzilla]

All of which brings up an interesting (compound) question:

1. Will the Emotiva Stealth DC-2 DAC be Roon-Ready with its own Ethernet input, and if so, will all of the Micro-Rendus, and SOtMs then be irrelavent?

And a follow-up question - this one specific to my own gear - assuming that the DC-2 does NOT have its own Roon-ready Ethernet input:

2. Would I install a digital-conditioning device between the server computer and the Roon-ready destination (in my case, an Oppo UDP-205) or between the Oppo and the DAC?

Now I know that half the Loungers become furious (to put it mildly) when I call these devices "digital-conditioning" devices, but by the manufacturer's own descriptions, this is EXACTLY what they're supposedly doing. So I therefore consider my question legitimate.

Now having done some reading, the answer to the number 2 question may well be "Neither - the device will replace the Oppo as the Roon destination." But if that's the case, then won't using the devices' USB output to my DAC throw away all the potential advantage of the device itself? My understanding (again from online reading) is that the USB and TOSLINK-optical interfaces are the two worst sounding digital interfaces. Supposedly, coaxial digital is the best available in consumer electronics. In other words, why put lipstick on a (USB)-pig when a (coaxial) "pretty girl" interface is already available on most DACs? Stated another way, doesn't my DAC's asynchronous USB input "throw away" anything that an upstream conditioner would have done?

I'm NOT arguing against those of you who claim that the digital conditioners "sound better." I do believe you. But I'm still trying to wrap my head around why that would be so. Even if I bought one and found that it DID sound noticeably and consistently better, my need to understand why would only be stronger. It's my nature and I can't help it. IMHO, the manufacturers have yet to give a cogent "why" explanation either.

The crux of every single "how it works" explanation so far is "it's a mystery." I reject such explanations on a routine basis in my job, and it galls me deeply to get such an explanation in my hobby. Now I do accept that sometimes, in rare situations, with new technology, such an explanation is the best that can be had until lab and field data can prove or disprove theoretical expectations - but at least there's a theory to test! I'm not sure that digital-conditioners even have a legitimate theory. Bah! Humbug!

But there's too much anecdotal evidence to ignore. Apparently the digital-conditioners are doing SOMETHING. My gut suspicion is that they're doing some DSP in the background to equalize the sound in some way, but until actual tests are done to prove or disprove that theory, we just won't know. If the output of the digital-conditioner is a bit-perfect replica of the input, then digital theory is definitely missing something (and something really important)!

My brain is full. I'm going to bed.

Boomzilla

[novisnick]

Nov 11, 2018 1:18:29 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

All of which brings up an interesting (compound) question:

1. Will the Emotiva Stealth DC-2 DAC be Roon-Ready with its own Ethernet input, and if so, will all of the Micro-Rendus, and SOtMs then be irrelavent?

And a follow-up question - this one specific to my own gear - assuming that the DC-2 does NOT have its own Roon-ready Ethernet input:

2. Would I install a digital-conditioning device between the server computer and the Roon-ready destination (in my case, an Oppo UDP-205) or between the Oppo and the DAC?

Now I know that half the Loungers become furious (to put it mildly) when I call these devices "digital-conditioning" devices, but by the manufacturer's own descriptions, this is EXACTLY what they're supposedly doing. So I therefore consider my question legitimate.

Now having done some reading, the answer to the number 2 question may well be "Neither - the device will replace the Oppo as the Roon destination." But if that's the case, then won't using the devices' USB output to my DAC throw away all the potential advantage of the device itself? My understanding (again from online reading) is that the USB and TOSLINK-optical interfaces are the two worst sounding digital interfaces. Supposedly, coaxial digital is the best available in consumer electronics. In other words, why put lipstick on a (USB)-pig when a (coaxial) "pretty girl" interface is already available on most DACs? Stated another way, doesn't my DAC's asynchronous USB input "throw away" anything that an upstream conditioner would have done?

I'm NOT arguing against those of you who claim that the digital conditioners "sound better." I do believe you. But I'm still trying to wrap my head around why that would be so. Even if I bought one and found that it DID sound noticeably and consistently better, my need to understand why would only be stronger. It's my nature and I can't help it. IMHO, the manufacturers have yet to give a cogent "why" explanation either.

The crux of every single "how it works" explanation so far is "it's a mystery." I reject such explanations on a routine basis in my job, and it galls me deeply to get such an explanation in my hobby. Now I do accept that sometimes, in rare situations, with new technology, such an explanation is the best that can be had until lab and field data can prove or disprove theoretical expectations - but at least there's a theory to test! I'm not sure that digital-conditioners even have a legitimate theory. Bah! Humbug!

But there's too much anecdotal evidence to ignore. Apparently the digital-conditioners are doing SOMETHING. My gut suspicion is that they're doing some DSP in the background to equalize the sound in some way, but until actual tests are done to prove or disprove that theory, we just won't know. If the output of the digital-conditioner is a bit-perfect replica of the input, then digital theory is definitely missing something (and something really important)!

My brain is full. I'm going to bed.

Boomzilla

“
“Now I know that half the Loungers become furious (to put it mildly) when I call these devices "digital-conditioning" devices, but by the manufacturer's own descriptions, this is EXACTLY what they're supposedly doing. So I therefore consider my question legitimate.”

Whom exactly did you speak to at sotm, told you this information? Whats his name and position? 

[garbulky]

Nov 11, 2018 1:18:29 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

All of which brings up an interesting (compound) question:

1. Will the Emotiva Stealth DC-2 DAC be Roon-Ready with its own Ethernet input, and if so, will all of the Micro-Rendus, and SOtMs then be irrelavent?

And a follow-up question - this one specific to my own gear - assuming that the DC-2 does NOT have its own Roon-ready Ethernet input:

2. Would I install a digital-conditioning device between the server computer and the Roon-ready destination (in my case, an Oppo UDP-205) or between the Oppo and the DAC?

Now I know that half the Loungers become furious (to put it mildly) when I call these devices "digital-conditioning" devices, but by the manufacturer's own descriptions, this is EXACTLY what they're supposedly doing. So I therefore consider my question legitimate.

Now having done some reading, the answer to the number 2 question may well be "Neither - the device will replace the Oppo as the Roon destination." But if that's the case, then won't using the devices' USB output to my DAC throw away all the potential advantage of the device itself? My understanding (again from online reading) is that the USB and TOSLINK-optical interfaces are the two worst sounding digital interfaces. Supposedly, coaxial digital is the best available in consumer electronics. In other words, why put lipstick on a (USB)-pig when a (coaxial) "pretty girl" interface is already available on most DACs? Stated another way, doesn't my DAC's asynchronous USB input "throw away" anything that an upstream conditioner would have done?

I'm NOT arguing against those of you who claim that the digital conditioners "sound better." I do believe you. But I'm still trying to wrap my head around why that would be so. Even if I bought one and found that it DID sound noticeably and consistently better, my need to understand why would only be stronger. It's my nature and I can't help it. IMHO, the manufacturers have yet to give a cogent "why" explanation either.

The crux of every single "how it works" explanation so far is "it's a mystery." I reject such explanations on a routine basis in my job, and it galls me deeply to get such an explanation in my hobby. Now I do accept that sometimes, in rare situations, with new technology, such an explanation is the best that can be had until lab and field data can prove or disprove theoretical expectations - but at least there's a theory to test! I'm not sure that digital-conditioners even have a legitimate theory. Bah! Humbug!

But there's too much anecdotal evidence to ignore. Apparently the digital-conditioners are doing SOMETHING. My gut suspicion is that they're doing some DSP in the background to equalize the sound in some way, but until actual tests are done to prove or disprove that theory, we just won't know. If the output of the digital-conditioner is a bit-perfect replica of the input, then digital theory is definitely missing something (and something really important)!

My brain is full. I'm going to bed.

Boomzilla

If you get technical, asynchronous USB should be superior to spdif in performance due to its ability to set the clock as the dac's clock. I'm not that sold on it when I take my listening experience into account. But that's what it's supposed to be.

[Boomzilla]

The only information I've been able to glean is from the Sonore and SOtM websites.

From Sonore ( www.sonore.us/microRendu.html ):

"The microRendu has been specifically built for processing USB audio perfectly." - Implying that computers process USB audio imperfectly (no further explanation given).
"You can also combine the microRendu with an audiophile grade linear power supply to achieve the lowest possible noise floor." - Implying that computer-direct USB has a higher noise floor (no further explanation given).

Reducing noise and processing USB audio "perfectly" are essentially filtering and conditioning functions. Period.

From SOtM (https://www.sotm-audio.com/sotmwp/english/portfolio-item/sms-200/ ):

"...most of audio product manufacturers experience deterioration of sound and are forced to use unnecessary features from the ready-made boards, but now it’s gone with the sMS-200." - Implying that computers degrade sound quality due to "unnecessary features" (no further explanation given).
"...the sMS-200 Neo retains this while still adding an extra dose of musicality to the party." - "Extra dose of musicality" implies addition to the bitstream but no explanation is provided of what's being added.

In short, the (very vague) implication from the manufacturers is that the devices reduce the noise floor (through superior power supplies) and "add musicality" but without any specific explanation of how. This is the definition of filtering (noise reduction) and conditioning (add musicality). Period.

Summary - The manufacturers claim that computers process USB audio imperfectly and that unnecessary motherboard features (and economy quality of the motherboards) are the causes. Yet no evidence for either claim is provided.

flimflam - noun
1. a trick or deception, especially a swindle or confidence game involving skillful persuasion or clever manipulation of the victim.
2. a piece of nonsense; twaddle; bosh.

snake oil - noun
1. any of various liquid concoctions of questionable medical value sold as an all-purpose curative, especially by traveling hucksters.
2. Slang . deceptive talk or actions; hooey; bunkum

Despite a complete lack of technical evidence, users claim that the devices improve the sound. Fine. But without any cogent explanation of how, I'm forced to conclude that the bitstream IS being altered (editorialized) by these devices. Apparently, the effect is pleasant, but we're back to the core question in audio - do you want accuracy or what "sounds good?" If these devices modify the sound (and every user seems to agree that they do), then by definition the sound from these devices is different than what's on the source file.

You like tube sound? Fine - your money your choice. You like Microrendu or SOtM sound? Fine - your money your choice. But let's not pretend that either is accurate to the source.

Boomzilla

[novisnick]

Yes, lets not pretend! What recording have you ever heard that was / is accurate to the source?
I’ll wait while you go buy tickets to the show.

[Boomzilla]

Well, the GOAL of recordings is to be accurate to the source. The succeed or fail to varying degrees. The goal of these devices, however, is to make all recordings "sound good," depending on what sound the manufacturers thought would sell...

So should your sound system be as accurate as possible, or homogenize everything to someone else's idea of "sounds good?"

[sahmen]

Nov 11, 2018 3:07:12 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

The only information I've been able to glean is from the Sonore and SOtM websites.

From Sonore ( www.sonore.us/microRendu.html ):

"The microRendu has been specifically built for processing USB audio perfectly." - Implying that computers process USB audio imperfectly (no further explanation given).
"You can also combine the microRendu with an audiophile grade linear power supply to achieve the lowest possible noise floor." - Implying that computer-direct USB has a higher noise floor (no further explanation given).

Reducing noise and processing USB audio "perfectly" are essentially filtering and conditioning functions. Period.

From SOtM (https://www.sotm-audio.com/sotmwp/english/portfolio-item/sms-200/ ):

"...most of audio product manufacturers experience deterioration of sound and are forced to use unnecessary features from the ready-made boards, but now it’s gone with the sMS-200." - Implying that computers degrade sound quality due to "unnecessary features" (no further explanation given).
"...the sMS-200 Neo retains this while still adding an extra dose of musicality to the party." - "Extra dose of musicality" implies addition to the bitstream but no explanation is provided of what's being added.

In short, the (very vague) implication from the manufacturers is that the devices reduce the noise floor (through superior power supplies) and "add musicality" but without any specific explanation of how. This is the definition of filtering (noise reduction) and conditioning (add musicality). Period.

Summary - The manufacturers claim that computers process USB audio imperfectly and that unnecessary motherboard features (and economy quality of the motherboards) are the causes. Yet no evidence for either claim is provided.

Boom, I'm no engineer or expert in these matters, and I also agree that Sonore's rendu product pages are quite cagey about the proprietary "secret sauces" that make their little engines tick, and that could frustrate scientifically curious minds like yourself...   On the other hand, I do not know to what extent one can legitimately fault Sonore for trying to protect the proprietary R & D secrets from which their products derive their own unique leverage or "edge" on the market, and I am not here to judge one way or the other, as I do not even have the expertise to do so...

What I can do is to direct you to a couple of other sources or places, where you can gather more information about them, even though they do not necessarily "give away the baby" with the bath water, so to speak. This information is about : 

1. the construction of the rendus themselves, and what goes into their claims of noise reduction and signal regeneration and clocking
2. What  their interaction with their power supply units (a very vital part of the above process) brings to the table...

Regarding item 1, the Microrendu page only claims that it places a “proprietary printed circuit board with only the essential components” between the ethernet input and USB output (to the DAC), a circuit board that is designed to minimize electrical noise, and thereby function as a  “purpose built audiophile device,”. and also, as a “high quality low noise and ultra low noise [regulator]”.  The ultrarendu page does not make these rather vague and mysterious expressions any clearer by simply adding that it is based  "on a new proprietary printed circuit board with only the essential components and some updates to match its ultra designation.” 

However, John Swenson, with the permission of Jesus, has described 4 main changes that were made to upgrade the Microrendu into the Ultrarendu >> link <<, and he itemizes those as

a. bigger size, b. much lower jitter clock, c. replacing switching regulators with ultra low noise linears, and d. improved board layout.

Obviously, the entire post has to be read in detail, as it says more about the upgrade than the Ultrarendu page itself does, but Swenson himself makes clear at the end, that he is not allowed to say more than what he has already listed on the page... Still, I hope you find the information there helpful, and not negligible

Now regarding item 2, and how much  the rendus rely on their external power supplies in pursuing their SQ-related objectives, the pages of both the Uptone Audio LPS-1 and LPS-1.2, which were both taylor made, at least in part, to complement the rendus make the following claims which I consider to be important, since they are listed as "the two main advances of...[their] groundbreaking new power supply" units:

*********
"the two main advances of UpTone Audio's groundbreaking new power supply are:

1) Speed and ultra-low output impedance over a broad bandwidth. (Battery supplies are poor in this regard; And many traditional traditional transformer/diode/capacitor/regulator linear PS units rely on big banks of filter caps to smooth what the regulator sees—which impacts speed and impedance.)

2) 100% galvanic isolation from the AC mains at all times. While one bank of ultracapacitors is supplying output, the other bank is charging. The output is never connected to the bank that is recharging, and the sophisticated design ensures silent and smooth transitioning from one bank to the other.

The most important result of the isolation afforded by the UltraCap™ LPS-1 is that it completely blocks the path of AC LEAKAGE CURRENTS. Some more in-depth information on the subject can be found on the Swenson Explains page, and here is bit more condensed explanation of this important topic—also written as a forum post by John Swenson***:"

**************

***The forum post by John Swenson referenced in the quote can be found here :.>> link <<

Additionally, the main claims about Ultracapacitors and how they may affect the sound of the rendus are listed on the Uptone LPS-1 and LPS 1.2 pages >> link <<

Now to repeat myself, I'm no scientist, and admittedly don't always understand the engineering jargon used in the 2 Swenson posts, and the uptone LPS pages, but I am drawing your attention to them, because I think they might be of some importance in explaining in a little more detail how the rendus accomplish their objectives, especially when working with matching power supplies, even if they're not giving away the proprietary information that Sonore wants to protect...

Frankly, I do not know how this new information will influence your impression that the rendus are just conditioners and nothing more, but I hope you find some of it to be helpful

[Boomzilla]

Thanks, sahmen -

The information is helpful. And I'm willing to abandon the claim that these are JUST filters and conditioners.

This does not change my previous conclusion, however - If these devices change the sound as significantly as the users claim, then it's more likely than not that they're changing the bits. And again, the ultimate question remains - Should your system be accurate to the original recording or should it only "sound good?"

[klinemj]

Nov 11, 2018 6:14:59 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

Thanks, sahmen -

The information is helpful. And I'm willing to abandon the claim that these are JUST filters and conditioners.

This does not change my previous conclusion, however - If these devices change the sound as significantly as the users claim, then it's more likely than not that they're changing the bits. And again, the ultimate question remains - Should your system be accurate to the original recording or should it only "sound good?"

Boom, to your original question #1...if Emotiva's DC-2 is Roon ready, that does not mean it will sound as good as feeding it with one of the devices we've been talking. I know this for a fact. How? I played Roon using my LH Labs Geek Pulse x-infinity as a Roon ready endpoint (which it is...as old as it is...nice feature!) via USB from my PC and compared that playing Roon to the microRendu and USB out to the Geek. The Geek alone was not the reason for the improved sound that I had initially heard. That said, I think it would be great is Emotiva made the DC-2 Roon ready (or at least their thin client streamer).

Second, glad you see the light on "not a conditioner". I will repeat something I said many posts ago...some devices add issues and some fail to. Based on all I read about these devices, the manufacturers are mostly striving to do their best to not add issues that other approaches do. Net, instead of "conditioning the issues out", they are failing to add them. As a result, they sound better...and one might say "closer to the original" because it's the original w/o added issues. The various things in Sahmen's post are some examples the Sonore folks has mentioned as approaches which prevent addition of issues. And, this is why I, and others, have objected when you belittle these devices by calling them "conditioners". That's not to say others don't market what I would also call a "conditioner"...others do. But that's very different than what the rendu line and the SOtM ultra do.

Mark

[novisnick]

Nov 11, 2018 4:43:46 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

Well, the GOAL of recordings is to be accurate to the source. The succeed or fail to varying degrees. The goal of these devices, however, is to make all recordings "sound good," depending on what sound the manufacturers thought would sell...

So should your sound system be as accurate as possible, or homogenize everything to someone else's idea of "sounds good?"

The “Goal” of recordings is to create art! And not necessarily to be accurate to the source. The “Goal” of these devices is to replicate that “art” . 

You make one heck of an assumption of what the final goal is. Art or copy? 

I’m Not trying to be argumentative, but we all see things differently and need to see through other people’s eyes. (Ears)

[Boomzilla]

Hi klinemj -

Am I correct in thinking that the Microrendu would fully REPLACE my Oppo UDP-205 as a Roon destination? If so, then it wouldn't matter whether or not the Emotiva Stealth DC-2 (or any other DAC) was "Roon-ready" because the Microrendu (or SOtM) would terminate the Roon stream instead.

[Boomzilla]

Nov 11, 2018 8:01:47 GMT -5 novisnick said:

The “Goal” of recordings is to create art! And not necessarily to be accurate to the source...

Well, THIS brings up a host of squiggles...

One would argue that the ORIGINAL ARIST creates the art - and that the goal of the reproduction system is NOT to editorialize, but rather to faithfully reproduce the music sent to it. Once one has a reproduction system that goes beyond reproduction, then we have an uninvited guest at the table - one who insists on laying their own colorations over every original masterpiece being served - (one time, at band camp...).

Think about it.

[DYohn]

Digital conditioners. Please. Get your head out of your whatever. Just because you see something a certain way does not make it so. Paraphrasing Neil deGrasse Tyson, facts don't care what you believe.

[Boomzilla]

Nov 11, 2018 10:48:41 GMT -5 DYohn said:

Digital conditioners. Please. Get your head out of your whatever. Just because you see something a certain way does not make it so. Paraphrasing Neil deGrasse Tyson, facts don't care what you believe.

Really?

THEN HERE'S THE FACTS -

1. There is no scientific explanation for WHAT the Microrendo or SOtM do -or don't do (NONE) - only marketing hype. - FACT

2. All efficacy claims are based on individual feedback (certainly prone to a variety of biases) - FACT

3. Defenders of these devices rely on groupthink to bolster their claims - FACT

4. Defenders of these devices attack those who disagree (and I've GOT my head out of my whatever, thank you very much - do you?) - FACT

SO ultimately, the burden of proof lies with those who are claiming unmeasurable "benefit" from their Microrendu or SOtM - NOT on the skeptics.

Just because YOU see something a certain way does not make it so.

Boomzilla

[DYohn]

Nov 11, 2018 11:02:23 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

Nov 11, 2018 10:48:41 GMT -5 DYohn said:

Digital conditioners. Please. Get your head out of your whatever. Just because you see something a certain way does not make it so. Paraphrasing Neil deGrasse Tyson, facts don't care what you believe.

Really?

THEN HERE'S THE FACTS -

1. There is no scientific explanation for WHAT the Microrendo or SOtM do -or don't do (NONE) - only marketing hype. - FACT

2. All efficacy claims are based on individual feedback (certainly prone to a variety of biases) - FACT

3. Defenders of these devices rely on groupthink to bolster their claims - FACT

4. Defenders of these devices attack those who disagree (and I've GOT my head out of my whatever, thank you very much - do you?) - FACT

SO ultimately, the burden of proof lies with those who are claiming unmeasurable "benefit" from their Microrendu or SOtM - NOT on the skeptics.

Just because YOU see something a certain way does not make it so.

Boomzilla

1. BS. They receive a signal via Ethernet and output a signal via USB. They don't "do" anything else. FACT
2. Efficacy? What the hell do you mean? They are effective. They sound good. FACT
3. Groupthin? FU. I rely on my ears.
4. Attack? No, perhaps insist on accuracy, which is all I've done.

So, ultimately, I say what I've always said. Trust your own ears. If it sounds good to you then do it. If it doesn't, don't. And get off your goddammm high horse.

[DYohn]

Look, sorry if that last post went too far, but man you have to stop speaking like you are some sort of expert when your posts demonstrate that you don't really know what you are talking about.

[novisnick]

Nov 11, 2018 10:29:08 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

Nov 11, 2018 8:01:47 GMT -5 novisnick said:

The “Goal” of recordings is to create art! And not necessarily to be accurate to the source...

Well, THIS brings up a host of squiggles...

One would argue that the ORIGINAL ARIST creates the art - and that the goal of the reproduction system is NOT to editorialize, but rather to faithfully reproduce the music sent to it. Once one has a reproduction system that goes beyond reproduction, then we have an uninvited guest at the table - one who insists on laying their own colorations over every original masterpiece being served - (one time, at band camp...).

Think about it.

So, Prince, MJ and others that sang, danced, produced and engineered as well as had visions of their artwork NEVER changed a thing in recording Their music.
I have long enjoyed my system and music without the need of “group think”:or somebody telling me what I like. God knows Ive been ancontrayian my whole life. Saying that Im enjoying better SQ at the suggestion of others is rather insulting. 

I have supported Marks Many opinions because I have HEARD the improvements, not because Im looking for support of my own. I know what im hearing. 

For your opinion here is no more superior then any other.  
We are dealing with computers and your track record with them and many software programs is well documented, not very good. Buy, rent or borrow either of these devices, if you decide to Listen to a sotm I’ll drive down and help you with it. 
This is not the debate team and your throwing around notions that everybody is crazy but you is discerning.
Inviting you to come listen wouldn’t give you a clue as youd not have a reference to the sound prior on my system.
But you are always welcome in my home and to break bread with, lets do cheesensteaks! 😁🎶🎶🎶

[Boomzilla]

Nov 11, 2018 11:34:53 GMT -5 DYohn said:

Look, sorry if that last post went too far, but man you have to stop speaking like you are some sort of expert when your posts demonstrate that you don't really know what you are talking about.

Everyone gets excessively wound-up occasionally, and I'm more prone than most. Sorry... I apologize if MY posts go too far - and they sometimes do. I'll admit that I've not yet heard these things (but I'm trying to) and I'll withhold further comment until I have. I probably don't say it often enough, DYohn, but I respect and appreciate your posts (and klinemj's and novisnick's and sahmen's and garbulky's and all the other Loungers who share their expertise and opinions so freely. And a special and particular thanks to Mr. Levkof).

So don't hesitate to call me out when I deserve it. I'm a big boy and will take my medicine when needed.

Glenn

[gld3gld3]

Man, this thread had really gotten into some interesting topics! It almost has a life of it's own! Haha.

I don't know if I have anything really important to add (other than being another data point), but I'd thought I would share my experience with ROON, music servers, endpoints, and USB "decrapifiers".

For some time now I've been using ROON. I built a PC to serve up the music. My goals with this this PC was for it to be completely silent, but be able to run ROCK (ROON Optimized Core Kit) and stream music to my DC-1 via USB. I went with a low power AMD CPU that was powerful enough for music streaming, but that would allow me to passively cool it. I was able to assemble this PC with a SSD for <$400 with a low latency Linux distro serving as the operating system. It's been working great for the last 3 years now.

For a long time (2yrs) my system consisted of this server feeding my DC-1 directly via USB. The system sounded good to my ears, but with everyone in the audiophile scene essentially shiitting on USB and indicating that things needed to be improved (in came the "decrapifiers") I reluctantly looked at what was being offered to "fix" USB audio. I didn't pull the trigger right away, as a lot of the claims of these usb noise filters/jitter reducers and usb-coax converters didn't seem reasonable to me. Along the way, Schiit introduced their Eitr and it peaked my interest because they were, in my opinion, pretty up front and clear about what it did. In their words, the Eitr provides "complete electrostatic and electromagnetic isolation (via transformers), self-power of all critical low-noise and reclocking sections, and separate, precision clock sources for both 44.1 and 48kHz multiples". These things made sense to me (eliminating noise and potentially reducing jitter are both good things), so I purchased one to try it out. It turns out that it did improve the sound of my system, in small but very noticeable ways (heck, even my wife mentioned hearing an improvement with no prompts from me). So that was that, Eitr stayed in the system and fed 1s and 0s to my DC-1 via coax. 

The most recent change I made to my system was adding a ROON endpoint. Of course, I had been hearing about the Sonore and Sotm products for some time, but never quite understood how they could improve MY system. The folks at ROON have been claiming for some time now that separating the music server and DAC via ethernet and endpoint is the best way to go, based purely on sound improvements (presumably by isolating the noisy server from other system electronics). Would a simple endpoint bring about more sonic gains? Well, I decided NOT to take the full plunge (read $$$+) and get a Rendu or Sotm product. Instead I bought a Raspberry Pi and installed RoPieee on it ($50 total investment all said and done). I moved my music server to a closet and in its old place, next to my DAC, I placed my Raspberry Pi endpoint. My reason for going with the Raspberry Pi (other than just the $) was that I already had the Eitr, which was supposedly taking care of the crappy USB stream (noise, jitter and all) coming out of whatever device. So, did the use of an endpoint make a sonic improvement? The answer: I can't say for sure. I can tell you that if there has been an improvement it has been more subtle than the improvements after adding Eitr into the system. I have not done any real critical listening yet, but at times I have thought that imaging improved (more defined placement of vocalists/instruments in the sound stage). But I can't say anything for certain at this point. That's funny, because I heard the improvements after Eitr even without listening critically (i.e., not sitting in the sweetspot and generally not close attention).

So that's been my experience with all of this. Would the Sonore or Sotm products do what the Raspberry Pi/Eitr combo does, but even better? It's possible. If members at the lounge at some point test a whole bunch of these solutions, I would be interested in hearing impressions and comparisons with a Raspberry Pi/Eitr (or other "decrapifier") endpoint. Especially given the price differential between this and the other solutions...

[Boomzilla]

Thanks, gld3gld3 - MOST helpful!