|
|
Post by vortecjr on Nov 11, 2018 16:15:16 GMT -5
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 What is disturbing is that you are insinuating in a public forum that these products are snake oil or filmfram without any credible supporting evidence. Have you ever heard of the terms defamation and libel? You should look them up and while you are at it you should also look up the word theory. You don’t have a theory...you have a hypothesis. BTW I can already say that your hypothesis is wrong because the units are bit perfect and I can easily show the affects of different power supplies. I’m also surprised that the administration of this forum world allow you act this way towards another member. |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Nov 11, 2018 16:51:18 GMT -5
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 What is disturbing is that you are insinuating in a public forum that these products are snake oil or filmfram without any credible supporting evidence. Have you ever heard of the terms defamation and libel? You should look them up and while you are at it you should also look up the word theory. You don’t have a theory...you have a hypothesis. BTW I can already say that your hypothesis is wrong because the units are bit perfect and I can easily show the affects of different power supplies. I’m also surprised that the administration of this forum world allow you act this way towards another member. Much merit to this statement!. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Nov 11, 2018 17:02:57 GMT -5
Hi vortecjr - What is disturbing is the attempt (by someone who has a financial stake in a product) to shut down discussion of that product by another who has NO financial reason to be biased. I call them as I see them. But I'll admit that I could be wrong. You obviously believe in your product - fine. But neither the product website nor your comments here provide any scientific evidence that the product actually does anything at all. So let me ask you clearly - Is the output of the Microrendu products a bit-perfect copy of the input? Yes or No? Do Microrendu products claim to reduce noise and jitter? Yes or No? If Microrendu products ARE claiming to lower noise and jitter, then what (if anything) differentiates their SPECIFIC jitter and noise reduction effects from other products such as the Audioquest Jitterbug and the Schiit Eitr that claim the same? To clarify, I'm NOT asking about the differences in interface (Microrendu products are Ethernet to USB, the Audioquest Jitterbug is USB to USB, and the Schiit Eitr is USB to Coax), but specifically about the jitter and noise reduction claims. And finally, if Microrendu products are bit-perfect, and if jitter and noise reduction are not the core of the claimed audio improvements, then what, exactly DOES Microrendu do that provides audio improvements? These are reasonable questions, asked politely, and this is a public forum appropriate for those answers. Thanks - Boomzilla |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 18,493
|
Post by DYohn on Nov 11, 2018 18:06:12 GMT -5
boomzilla when will you learn to STFU? Somehow your insistence on being right turns every one of your threads into a 200 page epic and you never listen to anyone. Plus, it is a violation of forum rules to run down other company's products. You know nothing about this topic yet you continue to talk out of your ass like you are some sort of expert. Please stop.
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,095
|
Post by klinemj on Nov 11, 2018 19:35:20 GMT -5
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. Correct...all you need is 1 Roon ready endpoint (for each location you want to play Roon through...I have 2 in my house in different locations). Mark |
|
|
|
Post by gld3gld3 on Nov 11, 2018 20:23:39 GMT -5
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?" This brings up another interesting topic. Earlier in my audiphile journey I would have totally accepted the idea of pusruing ultimate accuracy and fidelity to the original recording and artists intent. Now I see things a bit differently. How are we supposed to know when what we are hearing is accurate or not? Maybe the only ones who can truly know are the artists themselves and the recording engineers. How are the rest of us supposed to conclude that something is more or less accurate sounding? I think it is sort of purposturous now really. But everyone is welcome to pursue this hobby in the way they want to. Now I pursue "good sound", as in, what sounds good to me. I have given up the pursuit of being accurate to the recording/artist intent because I just don't think that's a realistic goal. Other than choosing equipment that tends to be neutral (not accentuating to a large degree any part of the audible frequency spectrum) and has a certain degree of resolutiin, what else can you one realistically do to ensure an "accurate" sound? |
|
|
|
Post by wilburthegoose on Nov 12, 2018 8:48:01 GMT -5
.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,493
|
Post by DYohn on Nov 12, 2018 9:59:44 GMT -5
One more time, in the interest of being complete, even though boomzilla is apparently unlikely to read and understand:
1) Network music players allow a distributed audio system in your home, meaning one or several playback locations that play media stored on a central server located elsewhere in the network, and from the Internet.
2) They are not converters. They are computers. They receive and process data from the server. This is one reason why they can affect the sound quality.
3) Devices like the SoTM and Rendu players and many others including the various DIY solutions will have different sound quality from one another and sound different from simply connecting a DAC to a computer. There are hundreds of reasons for this including the fact stated in number 2 that they are computers and are processing the signal. Also, since USB is generally a noisy medium, especially when taken off the motherboard or a daughter card on a PC or Mac, they can be optimized for audio - designed and built with lower electrical and mechanical noise (and other signal processing conventions) which will generally sound better than the computer's USB bus which is not designed for audio but instead is "universal."
4) The software employed can have a dramatic impact on the sound quality as well as can the hardware. Different server/player systems can sound different. There is no mystery about this: again, the software is processing the signal not simply passing it through nor "converting" it.
I hope this simplified description helps.
|
|
|
|
Post by mauriceminor on Nov 12, 2018 10:15:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean Genie on Nov 12, 2018 10:17:40 GMT -5
The dude says, "...I'll admit that I could be wrong... ...These are reasonable questions, asked politely, and this is a public forum appropriate for those answers." Thanks - Boomzilla To which you respond, Boomzilla - time to chill out. I don't think it's right to write such an attack against the company/products that a gentleman came here to discuss. We're better than that. Huh?😕 ... free country, moderated, open forum... 🎆 Boom away! 🙊🙉🙈 |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,493
|
Post by DYohn on Nov 12, 2018 10:31:16 GMT -5
i disagree. IMO that site is nothing more than one person's opinions, one person using testing methods that are not industry standard. |
|
|
|
Post by mauriceminor on Nov 12, 2018 10:40:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Hair Nick on Nov 12, 2018 10:40:09 GMT -5
I think Boomzilla's questions are fair but the snake oil comments are a little unwelcome.
Remember sound is subjective so YMMV.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Nov 12, 2018 12:37:41 GMT -5
I absolutely agree. I would also suggest one thing in the future - when any new equipment is discussed for the first time... A device like the UltraRendu is very different than the Schiit Eitr or the JitterBug... it serves a very different purpose, connects to your system differently, and is supposed to offer different benefits. In future, anyone posting about a new device or option should start out by explaining EXACTLY what it does, where and how you connect it, and what benefit it is supposed to offer. For example: The Schiit Eitr is a USB-to-S/PDIF converter, with galvanic isolation, and internal high quality clocking. It provides a single asynchronous USB input, and a single Coax S/PDIF output - so you MUST use it between a USB audio source and a DAC or processor that has a Coax S/PDIF input. It is especially intended for situations where noise from your computer or digital audio source is leaking into your DAC through the USB connection and degrading its performance, or simply where your DAC has a poor quality USB input (like the old-style non-asynchronous USB inputs found on many older DACs), or no USB input at all.
If your current DAC already has a USB input, and also has a Coax input, the Eitr can be used as an upgrade to the USB input in your DAC. If your current DAC has a Coax input, but no USB input, the Eitr will enable you to add a high quality USB input to it. There is no practical way to connect the Schiit Eitr to a DAC with only a single USB input (like our Ego DACs).
I think Boomzilla's questions are fair but the snake oil comments are a little unwelcome. Remember sound is subjective so YMMV. |
|
|
|
Post by sahmen on Nov 12, 2018 12:51:44 GMT -5
I absolutely agree. I would also suggest one thing in the future - when any new equipment is discussed for the first time... A device like the UltraRendu is very different than the Schiit Eitr or the JitterBug... it serves a very different purpose, connects to your system differently, and is supposed to offer different benefits. In future, anyone posting about a new device or option should start out by explaining EXACTLY what it does, where and how you connect it, and what benefit it is supposed to offer. For example: The Schiit Eitr is a USB-to-S/PDIF converter, with galvanic isolation, and internal high quality clocking. It provides a single asynchronous USB input, and a single Coax S/PDIF output - so you MUST use it between a USB audio source and a DAC or processor that has a Coax S/PDIF input. It is especially intended for situations where noise from your computer or digital audio source is leaking into your DAC through the USB connection and degrading its performance, or simply where your DAC has a poor quality USB input (like the old-style non-asynchronous USB inputs found on many older DACs), or no USB input at all.
If your current DAC already has a USB input, and also has a Coax input, the Eitr can be used as an upgrade to the USB input in your DAC. If your current DAC has a Coax input, but no USB input, the Eitr will enable you to add a high quality USB input to it. There is no practical way to connect the Schiit Eitr to a DAC with only a single USB input (like our Ego DACs).
I think Boomzilla's questions are fair but the snake oil comments are a little unwelcome. Remember sound is subjective so YMMV. Alright,, got it Keith. So, following that protocol you have just described, could you kindly say something about the next Emo Roon endpoint/network player, telling us where it might show up on an Emo component, and exactly what it might do?  Okay, I know this question is begging another one, but I thought I might cheat a little and jump the gun... I hope you do not mind |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,493
|
Post by DYohn on Nov 12, 2018 13:11:07 GMT -5
One more time, in the interest of being complete, even though boomzilla is apparently unlikely to read and understand: 1) Network music players allow a distributed audio system in your home, meaning one or several playback locations that play media stored on a central server located elsewhere in the network, and from the Internet. 2) They are not converters. They are computers. They receive and process data from the server. This is one reason why they can affect the sound quality. 3) Devices like the SoTM and Rendu players and many others including the various DIY solutions will have different sound quality from one another and sound different from simply connecting a DAC to a computer. There are hundreds of reasons for this including the fact stated in number 2 that they are computers and are processing the signal. Also, since USB is generally a noisy medium, especially when taken off the motherboard or a daughter card on a PC or Mac, they can be optimized for audio - designed and built with lower electrical and mechanical noise (and other signal processing conventions) which will generally sound better than the computer's USB bus which is not designed for audio but instead is "universal." 4) The software employed can have a dramatic impact on the sound quality as well as can the hardware. Different server/player systems can sound different. There is no mystery about this: again, the software is processing the signal not simply passing it through nor "converting" it. I hope this simplified description helps. I'll repost my own words as it would apply to any network player Emotiva or anyone else decided to offer. There is obviously a lack of understanding about these devices. |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Nov 12, 2018 13:32:17 GMT -5
... In future, anyone posting about a new device or option should start out by explaining EXACTLY what it does, where and how you connect it, and what benefit it is supposed to offer. ... And it would also be nice to offer examples of what specific issue is being addressed.
For example, I've mentioned before that a friend of mine has a Teac NT-503 and he claims that the SOtM sMS-200ultra Neo made a very non-subtle improvement to the sound of his system. From that, I'm guessing that the Teac has a bad USB Input section and needs the Digital Audio Data fed to it in a very particular manner (timing, whatever). (And the fact that Teac makes very suspicious claims about something they call "Bulk Pet USB transfer technology, with four transfer modes to vary sound character" makes me think that they have no clue whatsoever about how to implement USB.)
And, in the above example, we can also thin of the SOtM + Teac as being a single device which just happens to live in two boxes with a cable between them. We could surround this system with a cardboard box with pretty stickers and sparkly paint with an RJ45 Ethernet Cable coming in one side and two Balanced Audio cables exiting the other and call this our "Foo Network DAC". Which makes one wonder why Teac simply didn't do the right job in the first place.
Casey
|
|
|
|
Post by wilburthegoose on Nov 12, 2018 14:16:41 GMT -5
I'm going to be a lurker going forward, but I sure like what I hear when I use either my Oppo-UDP203 connected via HDMI to my XMC-1 or even my PC connected via USB to my XMC-1. That said, I AM curious as to what products like the Sonore line could do OK - Back to the bench. |
|
|
|
Post by gld3gld3 on Nov 12, 2018 14:31:56 GMT -5
I absolutely agree. I would also suggest one thing in the future - when any new equipment is discussed for the first time... A device like the UltraRendu is very different than the Schiit Eitr or the JitterBug... it serves a very different purpose, connects to your system differently, and is supposed to offer different benefits. In future, anyone posting about a new device or option should start out by explaining EXACTLY what it does, where and how you connect it, and what benefit it is supposed to offer. For example: The Schiit Eitr is a USB-to-S/PDIF converter, with galvanic isolation, and internal high quality clocking. It provides a single asynchronous USB input, and a single Coax S/PDIF output - so you MUST use it between a USB audio source and a DAC or processor that has a Coax S/PDIF input. It is especially intended for situations where noise from your computer or digital audio source is leaking into your DAC through the USB connection and degrading its performance, or simply where your DAC has a poor quality USB input (like the old-style non-asynchronous USB inputs found on many older DACs), or no USB input at all.
If your current DAC already has a USB input, and also has a Coax input, the Eitr can be used as an upgrade to the USB input in your DAC. If your current DAC has a Coax input, but no USB input, the Eitr will enable you to add a high quality USB input to it. There is no practical way to connect the Schiit Eitr to a DAC with only a single USB input (like our Ego DACs).
I think Boomzilla's questions are fair but the snake oil comments are a little unwelcome. Remember sound is subjective so YMMV. That's reasonable Keith. I think I am to blame for bringing the Schiit Eitr into the conversation. I think my reasoning was justified in that, combined with a Raspberry Pi (+software), the two seem to provide some degree of the same functionality (certainly not all) of a product like the Ultrarendu and others like it . Comparison 1 - Ultrarendu to Rasbperry Pi: -The Ultrarendu is an ethernet in, USB out computer (solely), with upgradeable software (Sonicorbiter) designed specifically for it by Sonore. The Raspberry Pi can be used as an ethernet in, USB out device (in addition to many other things, as it is a multipurpose, open platform computer), on which you can install purpose-built software -to, among many other things, receive music over ethernet and output it via USB. - The Ultrarendu claims to reduce noise from its internal components and from incoming power and also provides high quality clocking. We can reasonably suspect that the Raspberry Pi is not on par with the Ultrarendu in terms of these characteristics. They are certainly not the selling point or one of the main design considerations of the Pi. - There are multiple ways you can power both of these devices. Comparison 2 - Ultrarendu to Eitr: - In contrast to the Ultrarendu, the Eitr is a USB in, coax S/PDIF out device, so it can sit between a computer (like the Raspberry Pi) and your DAC (assuming requisite inputs). - Both of these devices attempt to address noise that can be introduced from the USB connection, the Eitr claiming complete electrostatic and electromagnetic isolation and powering critical low-noise and reclocking sections with its own built-in linear power supply. - Both of these devices reclock the incoming USB data stream using their own high quality clocks to reduce jitter. The above is not an exhaustive comparison. Now, combine Eitr/Raspberry Pi, slap on your software of choice (Ropieee, Dietpi, whatever...), and I think you can begin to see why this solution approaches the Ultrarendus and their ilk in several key functions (again, not claiming apples<->apples). Now, the performance comparisons would be interesting to find out, as subjective as they may be... Thoughts? |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,493
|
Post by DYohn on Nov 12, 2018 14:39:35 GMT -5
The purpose of the Schiit Eitr is to replace an inferior USB signal, or allow a user to connect a USB source to a DAC that lacks a USB input or to one with an inferior USB input. That's all it's for. I used to use mine between an Ultrarendu and my Kora Hermes since the Kora lacks a USB input. It worked great.
|
|
