|
|
Post by novisnick on Oct 27, 2018 18:42:48 GMT -5
Magnetic fields? My PC has no magnetic media! Amazing that theres no copper or silver or aluminum or power coming into your PC! hey Boomzilla ! I found your magic box! |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Oct 27, 2018 19:00:18 GMT -5
OK, guys - we're back to the argument that my friend Russel makes about his ripping. He claims that computer data transfer protocols aren't "good enough" for music bits. His claim is that If I make a rip through my computer and he rips the same disc through his "magical not-computer" that EVEN THOUGH WE BOTH HAVE IDENTICAL BIT-PERFECT COPIES - his will sound better than mine. I claimed BS - AND YOU GUYS AGREED WITH ME! Yet NOW you're claiming that Russel is right? You can't have it both ways. Either a bit perfect copy is a bit perfect copy or it's something else. The bit-perfect copy that comes from your micro-hooptie is the ABSOLUTE SAME bit-perfect copy that came out of the computer itself. Your Rendu can't create quality that's not there in the first place. If it's changing the bits, then that's one thing - but if what came out of the Rendu is identical to what went in (NO MEASURABLE DIFFERENCE - a bit-perfect copy IS a bit-perfect copy), then by definition there is no difference. Yet you're saying that one identical digital copy is somehow "better sounding" from passing through the micro-whooptie-do? WTF? Either everything (EVERYTHING) that we know about digital data is wrong, or else you're fooling yourselves. Playback is NOT making a copy! Research what a clock does and why its so important to have a great and accurate one. You don’t want a device calling back for the same information because of data not being in the right place at the right time. Also, buffering, smearing and jitter. Sending data to be played is very different then burning a bit perfect copy. Time is utmost of importance , your not listening when the burner delays to reclock the information and checking for accuracy. Its more complicated then you think. |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,095
|
Post by klinemj on Oct 27, 2018 19:57:42 GMT -5
OK, guys - we're back to the argument that my friend Russel makes about his ripping. He claims that computer data transfer protocols aren't "good enough" for music bits. His claim is that If I make a rip through my computer and he rips the same disc through his "magical not-computer" that EVEN THOUGH WE BOTH HAVE IDENTICAL BIT-PERFECT COPIES - his will sound better than mine. I claimed BS - AND YOU GUYS AGREED WITH ME! Yet NOW you're claiming that Russel is right? You can't have it both ways. Either a bit perfect copy is a bit perfect copy or it's something else. The bit-perfect copy that comes from your micro-hooptie is the ABSOLUTE SAME bit-perfect copy that came out of the computer itself. Your Rendu can't create quality that's not there in the first place. If it's changing the bits, then that's one thing - but if what came out of the Rendu is a bit-perfect, identical file to what went in (NO MEASURABLE DIFFERENCE - a bit-perfect copy IS a bit-perfect copy), then by definition there is no difference. Yet you're saying that one identical digital copy is somehow "better sounding" from passing through the micro-whooptie-do? WTF? Either everything (EVERYTHING) that we know about digital data is wrong, or else you're fooling yourselves. And NO - Don't feed me any BS about your magic box removing jitter and noise either. What comes out of ANY current computer is ALREADY clean clear through. And if you think that the jitter and noise IS what's being removed from the computer output, then you're already too late. Any digital jitter or noise has already "done its dirty" on your bits when they flowed from your external USB HDD to your computer or from the internet to your computer. And this is completely ignoring all the times (probably more than a dozen - maybe as many as a hundred?) that the music file you're listening to got transferred from recording computer to mixing board to DSP studio to disc-mastering board to cd-stamper, etc. etc. etc. Claiming that a magic-filter at the complete rear end of the audio chain makes up for all the digital data transfers upstream is not scientifically credible (no more than a "magic power cord" can make a difference at the rear end of a noisy municipal power system). Wave a chicken bone over the thing and cry "mumba-mojumba" - Should provide an equivalent change... I agree with Nick on this one...we are talking different things. 1 (your assertion) was ripping differences. The other (this) is playback impacts. I was, and remain, open to trying the ripping test we talked. I am skeptical, but I was skeptical about the rendu's impact also. I was wrong on that one...I could be wrong on ripping. The only thing I can't fully subscribe to that Nick talks is the reason for what I heard. He may be right as to what the root cause is, but I don't know and frankly at this point - don't care. But, I know what I heard in my solo testing, and I know what I heard with chicagorspec...there is something different about the rendu series w/the power supplies I have used with it vs. using a PC or even the ERC-3. And...it's good. Try it...just like I am willing to try the ripping thing from your audio amigo. You have invested a LOT in trying lots of speakers, amps, preamps, etc...invest in trying this approach to getting your digital to a good DAC. Mark |
|
|
|
Post by chicagorspec on Oct 27, 2018 22:14:23 GMT -5
You have invested a LOT in trying lots of speakers, amps, preamps, etc...invest in trying this approach to getting your digital to a good DAC. Mark Boy, there's an understatement. |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Oct 27, 2018 22:33:54 GMT -5
You have invested a LOT in trying lots of speakers, amps, preamps, etc...invest in trying this approach to getting your digital to a good DAC. Mark Boy, there's an understatement. I do believe that it’s past time for @boozilla either take a road trip or review a NAA, Network player. Its an investment in time! But well spent. Grab your DAC if you like but take the trip! Cheese steak to gain along with knowledge and experience! Come on NEY SAYER. 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Oct 27, 2018 23:43:32 GMT -5
Im calling a foul for all those with questions and thought that the video I posted was worth their time to watch!  |
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Oct 27, 2018 23:52:19 GMT -5
Says the guy who lives here... No better place like home!  |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Oct 28, 2018 0:42:12 GMT -5
Clocks and timing and jitter ,,,,OH my!
|
|
|
|
Post by foggy1956 on Oct 28, 2018 7:35:32 GMT -5
OK, guys - we're back to the argument that my friend Russel makes about his ripping. He claims that computer data transfer protocols aren't "good enough" for music bits. His claim is that If I make a rip through my computer and he rips the same disc through his "magical not-computer" that EVEN THOUGH WE BOTH HAVE IDENTICAL BIT-PERFECT COPIES - his will sound better than mine. I claimed BS - AND YOU GUYS AGREED WITH ME! Yet NOW you're claiming that Russel is right? You can't have it both ways. Either a bit perfect copy is a bit perfect copy or it's something else. The bit-perfect copy that comes from your micro-hooptie is the ABSOLUTE SAME bit-perfect copy that came out of the computer itself. Your Rendu can't create quality that's not there in the first place. If it's changing the bits, then that's one thing - but if what came out of the Rendu is identical to what went in (NO MEASURABLE DIFFERENCE - a bit-perfect copy IS a bit-perfect copy), then by definition there is no difference. Yet you're saying that one identical digital copy is somehow "better sounding" from passing through the micro-whooptie-do? WTF? Either everything (EVERYTHING) that we know about digital data is wrong, or else you're fooling yourselves. Playback is NOT making a copy! Research what a clock does and why its so important to have a great and accurate one. You don’t want a device calling back for the same information because of data not being in the right place at the right time. Also, buffering, smearing and jitter. Sending data to be played is very different then burning a bit perfect copy. Time is utmost of importance , your not listening when the burner delays to reclock the information and checking for accuracy. Its more complicated then you think. If your dac has an asynchronous clock doesn't that throw clocking out as a factor? |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Oct 28, 2018 9:07:59 GMT -5
Playback is NOT making a copy! Research what a clock does and why its so important to have a great and accurate one. You don’t want a device calling back for the same information because of data not being in the right place at the right time. Also, buffering, smearing and jitter. Sending data to be played is very different then burning a bit perfect copy. Time is utmost of importance , your not listening when the burner delays to reclock the information and checking for accuracy. Its more complicated then you think. If your dac has an asynchronous clock doesn't that throw clocking out as a factor? No, not at all. the asynchronous clock is not a master word clock. We’re dipping into deep engineering here folks, above most pay grades. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Oct 28, 2018 17:31:17 GMT -5
"Intermediate digital conditioning devices" that I've already tried =
Audioquest Jitterbug USB Filter
Schiit Eitr USB Conditioning Interface
Results? Somewhere between "no audible difference" to "maybe a slight improvement (but probably not)" with the average being "slightly different, but definitely not any better."
So the question must be dealt with is "Do Audioquest and Schiit not know what they're doing, or is my gear already good enough without interface devices that their potential claimed improvements are academic?"
Note that the best audio interface I've heard so far is direct HDMI connection between the server and the DAC. The second best is digital coaxial, third = USB, and worst = optical TOSLINK. YMMV
Has anyone actually TRIED comparing the output of a Micro-Rendu to the unprocessed digital file (fresh from the server, so to speak)? Have the two been identical bit-perfect copies? If not, then mystery SOLVED. The M-R is editorializing the sound of the file. It's OK if you prefer the "edited" sound of the M-R output, and whatever change the M-R is making is now measurable and comprehensible (no magic needed).
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,095
|
Post by klinemj on Oct 28, 2018 17:49:28 GMT -5
"Intermediate digital conditioning devices" that I've already tried = Audioquest Jitterbug USB Filter Schiit Eitr USB Conditioning Interface Results? Somewhere between "no audible difference" to "maybe a slight improvement (but probably not)" with the average being "slightly different, but definitely not any better." So the question must be dealt with is "Do Audioquest and Schiit not know what they're doing, or is my gear already good enough without interface devices that their potential claimed improvements are academic?" Note that the best audio interface I've heard so far is direct HDMI connection between the server and the DAC. The second best is digital coaxial, third = USB, and worst = optical TOSLINK. YMMV Has anyone actually TRIED comparing the output of a Micro-Rendu to the unprocessed digital file (fresh from the server, so to speak)? Have the two been identical bit-perfect copies? If not, then mystery SOLVED. The M-R is editorializing the sound of the file. It's OK if you prefer the "edited" sound of the M-R output, and whatever change the M-R is making is now measurable and comprehensible (no magic needed). So...skip the "why" some of us report hearing different sound...key question for me in "have you ever heard anything from the rendu series or the SOTM products?" Yes? No? If not, I think you should. To your question, I have not tried comparing the output of a MR/UR/etc to that of the "fresh from the server" file in terms of bits. I don't have a way to do that, or it would be interesting to try. But, I have compared the sound of a FLAC file from NAS to my DAC and the same FLAC file from NAS to MR and UR to DAC...and I have not found a single piece of music that sounded worse with the MR/UR and most sounded a lot better. Regarding "editorializing", I would say that every piece of gear we have many or may not alter the sound in some way. So, in other words - all music we hear has some degree of editing to it. As one of Nick's videos pointed out, there are different approaches to filtering digital sources. I am familiar with this as my Geek DAC has different options I can use for filters. I chose the one I liked best and use it...but they are all different. Every DAC has some filter applied. This is a form of editing. It's not a dirty word...it's just what they all do. As such, all are editing. No big deal...but some sound better than others. (PS - still happy to try your audio amigo's rip test...) (PS again...the devices you cite are not the same kinds of devices Nick and I are talking about...different animals...come to the dark side...try what we're suggesting...) Mark |
|
|
|
Post by sahmen on Oct 28, 2018 18:09:51 GMT -5
I think the only way to bring the skeptics and believers on the same page is direct experience, Your ears won't lie to you. That is all I have to say about this. It is very easy to get lost and gridlocked in endless, and often futile theoretical debates, but in this particular case, it seems to me that whatever is making the difference (and there is a noticeable and non-negligible difference in play here, in my opinion) is getting lost in translation...
It is a bit like the debate over measurements, and their weird, and unpredictable relationship to sq performance, except that, in this case, I think the network bridges, players, and renderers are on to something very real and tangible, which is eluding those who are coming to this from the viewpoint of the received wisdom in computer audio science. What if this received wisdom has not fully caught up with the R & D discoveries of these new technologies of renderers, players, bridges, etc. etc.
Yet this is what makes 14-30 day trials, and 30-day return policies such a godsend in this hobby... If you listen for yourself in your own audio/network environment and you're not convinced, it won't cost you anything.
Full disclosure : I am fully and unrepentantly in the believers camp in this debate. It took less than 5 minutes of a Microrendu + Roon experience to make me a full convert, and I have never looked back. I have even acquired more network players since then.
Respectfully submitted. YMMV
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,095
|
Post by klinemj on Oct 28, 2018 18:16:00 GMT -5
+1...this! (above)
|
|
|
|
Post by foggy1956 on Oct 28, 2018 18:21:25 GMT -5
If your dac has an asynchronous clock doesn't that throw clocking out as a factor? No, not at all. the asynchronous clock is not a master word clock. We’re dipping into deep engineering here folks, above most pay grades. I thought the purpose of an asynchronous clock was to negate the need for synchronizing clocks between devices? |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,095
|
Post by klinemj on Oct 28, 2018 18:29:06 GMT -5
No, not at all. the asynchronous clock is not a master word clock. We’re dipping into deep engineering here folks, above most pay grades. I thought the purpose of an asynchronous clock was to negate the need for synchronizing clocks between devices? The best way I can think of this is that it's often better to not get things messy vs. try to clean up a mess after the fact. That may or may not explain what I have heard, and frankly - I don't care "why". My system sounds better than ever. Try it yourself...30 day return policy from Small Green Computer. PS - my DAC has dual Femto clocks - reputed to be awesome. Yet, a microRendu and ultraRendu improve its sound. Go figure... Mark |
|
|
|
Post by foggy1956 on Oct 28, 2018 18:34:04 GMT -5
I thought the purpose of an asynchronous clock was to negate the need for synchronizing clocks between devices? The best way I can think of this is that it's often better to not get things messy vs. try to clean up a mess after the fact. That may or may not explain what I have heard, and frankly - I don't care "why". My system sounds better than ever. Try it yourself...30 day return policy from Small Green Computer. PS - my DAC has dual Femto clocks - reputed to be awesome. Yet, a microRendu and ultraRendu improve its sound. Go figure... Mark Will they work with a hdmi in and out? |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Oct 28, 2018 18:35:49 GMT -5
Hi Mark -
You're confusing "filtering" (as performed by your Geek DAC) with the MR. The Micro-Rendu is not a DAC. It does no digital to analog conversions. It is a strictly digital device. You can't amplify and play the output of a Micro-Rendu - you can only send it on to a DAC (where the actual conversion and low-pass filtering takes place).
Other than removing jitter and noise from the digital stream (that the Audioquest and Schiit also claim to do), there is nothing that the Micro-Rendu CAN do to the digital bitstream. Nothing. Unless (and this is a BIG "unless") the Micro-Rendu is also applying some kind of digital signal processing.
Now there's nothing inherently wrong with using DSP, and you may well find that you like the results. But if that's what is happening, then what you've got is not a magic box, but instead a digital equalizer. The only way to tell would be to compare the input bits to the output bits of the Micro Rendu. And despite a Google search, I find no such comparison anywhere. From the TAS review, "Adrian Lebena, Sonore’s Vice President, explained: “Over-the-counter computers were not designed to be audio players. They have all sorts of hard drives, clocks, and power supplies firing off in all directions, creating noise (emphasis mine) that translates into a minimizing of critical spatial or soundstage cues.”
So in a nutshell, the VP of Sonore clearly claims that the Micro-Rendu IS, in fact, a noise reducer (as are the Audioquest, and the Schiit), but specifically does NOT address whether the Micro-Rendu's output is a bit-perfect doppelgänger of the device's input.
Since EVERY review I've yet read of the Micro-Rendu claims that the effect on music is clearly audible, I suggest (strongly) that what's coming out of the device is NOT what went in. In short, the Micro-Rendu is not only a noise-reducer, but also a digital equalizer, period. If you prefer the equalized sound of the output, then nobody can argue that (in matters of taste, there is no dispute). But this isn't magic, and it isn't just digital noise filtering or jitter reduction either. It's digital signal processing.
Until I see some evidence that this is anything more than an equalizer, I'm holding onto my money.
|
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Oct 28, 2018 18:42:29 GMT -5
Im done! If somebody really wants to understand what’s Actually happening do some deeper research without prejudice. Its interesting and much more compex then I can explain! Its not as simple as Boomzilla thinks it is. Ive dug and read a lot about the subject, Edit; For the record, I’ve always believed the sotm to be a different superior device then the Rendu. The toys that are mentioned are nothing more then cheap filters. (schiit & Audioquest) |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,095
|
Post by klinemj on Oct 28, 2018 18:58:45 GMT -5
Hi Mark - You're confusing "filtering" (as performed by your Geek DAC) with the MR. The Micro-Rendu is not a DAC. It does no digital to analog conversions. It is a strictly digital device. You can't amplify and play the output of a Micro-Rendu - you can only send it on to a DAC (where the actual conversion and low-pass filtering takes place). Other than removing jitter and noise from the digital stream (that the Audioquest and Schiit also claim to do), there is nothing that the Micro-Rendu CAN do to the digital bitstream. Nothing. Unless (and this is a BIG "unless") the Micro-Rendu is also applying some kind of digital signal processing. Now there's nothing inherently wrong with using DSP, and you may well find that you like the results. But if that's what is happening, then what you've got is not a magic box, but instead a digital equalizer. The only way to tell would be to compare the input bits to the output bits of the Micro Rendu. And despite a Google search, I find no such comparison anywhere. From the TAS review, "Adrian Lebena, Sonore’s Vice President, explained: “Over-the-counter computers were not designed to be audio players. They have all sorts of hard drives, clocks, and power supplies firing off in all directions, creating noise (emphasis mine) that translates into a minimizing of critical spatial or soundstage cues.” So in a nutshell, the VP of Sonore clearly claims that the Micro-Rendu IS, in fact, a noise reducer (as are the Audioquest, and the Schiit), but specifically does NOT address whether the Micro-Rendu's output is a bit-perfect doppelgänger of the device's input. Since EVERY review I've yet read of the Micro-Rendu claims that the effect on music is clearly audible, I suggest (strongly) that what's coming out of the device is NOT what went in. In short, the Micro-Rendu is not only a noise-reducer, but also a digital equalizer, period. If you prefer the equalized sound of the output, then nobody can argue that (in matters of taste, there is no dispute). But this isn't magic, and it isn't just digital noise filtering or jitter reduction either. It's digital signal processing. Until I see some evidence that this is anything more than an equalizer, I'm holding onto my money. I did not say the rendu's and the like are filtering like a DAC. I said all most things "edit"...and that's not bad. That said, you never answered my question. Yes or No? Ever hear one?If not, they have a 30 day trial period. You change other gear more often that you change underwear...ok, maybe that's a stretch, but...you get the point. Why not try it risk free? Mark |
|
