|
|
Post by garbulky on Dec 21, 2018 0:42:41 GMT -5
Well clearly the people that have heard it have no reason why this thing should actually sound different other than their subjective impressions - which doesn't explain why, just that it does to them. The lack of a clear mechanism makes their ability to persuade others weak as it is subjective impressions they go on.
The people that haven't heard it see no reason why it should sound different but lack subjective impressions. However subjective impressions cannot be knocked. Because at least to that person, once they've heard it and they can confirm that it's real - to them - then that really is the only thing that matters. Logic doesn't make you enjoy the music. Your ears and your subjective experience does. So despite lacking persuasive power for others, you gain validation for yourself.
This isn't unusual. But I think the debate is happening because in this case it is a transport which is much harder to prove a reason for a difference because the criteria is simpler.
The bit 1 or zero has to
Be a 1 or zero
Happen at exactly the right time
But whatever it is, there is something important going on in the way we normally use our gear that we need to figure out because we are not getting the whole story. The reason might have nothing to do with audio performance and everything to do with say liking the color of the component. It may not be something we like. But whatever it is, it's important that we figure out how to explain it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Dec 21, 2018 5:15:52 GMT -5
Actually garbulky, I can think of several reasons why different Trasports could sound different while still faithfully conveying the Digital Audio Data without corruption. But all of these implicate a finicky receiver. But as I said, in the end of the day, I’m mostly just curious. Casey |
|
|
|
Post by foggy1956 on Dec 21, 2018 6:30:37 GMT -5
I'm not going to be able to buy off on that argument, so let's just let that thread die. I don't know about the RMC-1, but I would certainly hope so. The argument is fairly simple. If Transport "A" makes things wonderful, then I can put a cardboard box around Transport "A" and the DAC and call that the new DAC' with the same improved performance. Look, I'm not telling people that what you're hearing isn't true. One of my best friends also says that the move from a Raspbery Pi 3+ running the RuPieee distribution to a SOtM sMS-200ultra Neo totally changed the sound (for the better) of his Team NT-503. What I am saying is that, as a very curious person, I'm not satisfied with merely observing data. I want to know "why". If there's something that these Transports are doing, it ought to be possible to simply do the same in the RMC-1 or any other expensive DAC (because the cost of "making things wonderful" may preclude doing this on cheaper DACs). Casey You do not have to observe data you silly you just need to listen to it. You are really starting to sound pathetic. Listening to data sounds alot like white noise |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,086
Member is Online
|
Post by klinemj on Dec 21, 2018 10:04:17 GMT -5
If there's something that these Transports are doing, it ought to be possible to simply do the same in the RMC-1 or any other expensive DAC (because the cost of "making things wonderful" may preclude doing this on cheaper DACs). Casey So, are the DAC's I have noted that others have and have noted large improvements with these devices not included in your "any other expensive DAC" list? If not, what would be? As a reminder, these include DACs from LH Labs, Mytek, Schiit, Emotiva (DC-1), and more - including your friend's TEAC NT-503. I'm curious too...and in this case, curious to learn what, to you, makes something a valid "expensive DAC". Mark |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Dec 21, 2018 11:18:49 GMT -5
Don't know yet till we've examined the system and tried to figure out what's going on. I wonder how much it's gonna cost me in Test Equipment??? :-)
Casey
|
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,259
|
Post by KeithL on Dec 21, 2018 11:49:04 GMT -5
Let's try that a little differently....
It is client-server software being handled on very electrically quiet small, specialized computers WHOSE ONLY PURPOSE IN LIFE IS TO GET DIGITAL BITS FROM THE SOURCE TO THE DAC IN ABSOLUTELY PERFECT CONDITION. (I'm specifically talking about things that affect sound quality. If you exclude sound quality, then there are all sorts of opportunities to have a superior user interface, faster switching time, and the like.)
If it does its job correctly then it will deliver those bits without changing them. If it changes the bits, WHETHER THEY SOUND BETTER TO YOUR OR NOT, then it is doing its job less well. If it changes the bits in some way, and you find them to sound better, then that is a form of euphonic coloration (that's not to say you won't enjoy it). (From everything I've seen the Rendu supposedly does NOT do this.)
The ONLY POSSIBLE WAY it can make things sound better, other than to change the bits themselves in some euphonic way, is if it helps an imperfect DAC do a better job of converting them. (And, from everything I've ever seen claimed by Sonore, that is EXACTLY what they claim it does; reduce noise and timing errors that cause many DACs to do a less-than-perfect job.)
It's not at all snake oil if the Rendu does in fact enable your DAC to sound better by reducing things like jitter and noise that were previously compromising its sound. And, since there is no such thing as "a perfect DAC", it seems quite reasonable that it might do so (reduce those things in such a way that it enables some DACs to perform better).
There are MANY things that distinguish one streamer from another.... other than things like the user interface.
However they all fall into two specific groups.. with the output of the device dividing them.
1)
They can do something that enables them to avoid errors and reliably produce a bit perfect output more often or more consistently. Many streamers do in fact fail to produce a bit-perfect output, due to lost data, processing errors, and whatnot.
Preventing that would make one sound better than another - but you cannot improve it past "reliably consistently bit-perfect".
2) They can do something that allows them to deliver a bit-perfect output to the DAC while avoiding delivering other "junk" along with the bits that might compromise the performance of the DAC. (Again, this is what Sonore says the Rendu's do... and it makes perfect sense.)
And I suppose, in a philosophical way, you could call that "making the bits better"...
Although, personally, I would suggest that "delivering the same bits - in better condition", would be a more accurate way of describing that.
It's sort of like the "God of the gaps" argument... Except, in this case, there are no gaps... There are plenty of opportunities for "subtle but important variations" in the analog signal chain, and at the points where the conversions take place, but NOT in the digital signal chain.
(But the Rendus sit squarely and solidly in the digital portion of the signal chain... )
No, there are just some who want to know what's going on. Consider it the Curious Scientist in me ... And feel free to ascribe "Curious" at any comma-point you like ... :-) Casey It's simple, really, as I've tried to explain before. It is not just "digital bits" being transported from one medium to another. It is client-server software being handled on very electrically quiet small, specialized computers. What we are reporting is that some specialized computers (SoTM, Sonore products) sound better to us than other specialized computers (Raspberry Pi) and, in my case, that the Roon software sounds better than the LMS software. Trying to say it's because of some issue of USB or dismissing it as "impossible" is arrogant ignorance hiding behind technical expertise. I am also a scientist and an engineer and for years dismissed higher-end players and streamers as snake oil. I was completely wrong once I used my ears. I say try one if you use network audio and listen for yourself. |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,486
|
Post by DYohn on Dec 21, 2018 12:08:02 GMT -5
Keith, get one. Try it.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,259
|
Post by KeithL on Dec 21, 2018 12:29:42 GMT -5
I disagree....
There are plenty of reasons why it could make a difference in some systems.
I've read several descriptions that offer reasons why the Rendu might make your music sound better..... They say it delivers an output that is not only bit perfect, but also has especially low levels of noise and jitter, which enables the DAC to do its job better. Also, if you read Sonore's descriptions, they make numerous references to low jitter clocks, and low noise regulators, and other well known methods for achieving these goals in a design. They also have a long list of other ways in which they have applied what engineers refer to as "good design practices"..... In short, it simply seems like a well designed product, and probably does its job very well.
But, yes, all of this amounts to "delivering the same bits as everyone else but getting rid of extra junk that would cause many DACs to perform less than optimally".
This is all reasonable... It makes perfect sense... And it explains how a Rendu could make a significant improvement in some systems... (But it does also open up the possibility that, in some systems, it may NOT make a difference, and provides some clues as to when we would or wouldn't expect significant improvements.)
I simply don't understand any need to bring pseudo-mystical claptrap into the discussion. It really seems as if some folks are dead set and determined to find some magical ingredient, or wondrous secret, instead of just admitting that it may just be competent design. (I'll admit that would be cool..... but I don't think it's actually true.)
Well clearly the people that have heard it have no reason why this thing should actually sound different other than their subjective impressions - which doesn't explain why, just that it does to them. The lack of a clear mechanism makes their ability to persuade others weak as it is subjective impressions they go on. The people that haven't heard it see no reason why it should sound different but lack subjective impressions. However subjective impressions cannot be knocked. Because at least to that person, once they've heard it and they can confirm that it's real - to them - then that really is the only thing that matters. Logic doesn't make you enjoy the music. Your ears and your subjective experience does. So despite lacking persuasive power for others, you gain validation for yourself. This isn't unusual. But I think the debate is happening because in this case it is a transport which is much harder to prove a reason for a difference because the criteria is simpler. The bit 1 or zero has to Be a 1 or zero Happen at exactly the right time But whatever it is, there is something important going on in the way we normally use our gear that we need to figure out because we are not getting the whole story. The reason might have nothing to do with audio performance and everything to do with say liking the color of the component. It may not be something we like. But whatever it is, it's important that we figure out how to explain it. |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Dec 21, 2018 12:40:31 GMT -5
So, has anyone tried the A/B comparisons on the RMC-1 yet? I'm curious if it also makes things better there. The RMC-1 has a completely different USB Input implementation and a different DAC ASIC (who's implementation may or may not be more impervious to electrical interference, etc.)
Casey
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Dec 21, 2018 12:50:50 GMT -5
So, has anyone tried the A/B comparisons on the RMC-1 yet? I'm curious if it also makes things better there. The RMC-1 has a completely different USB Input implementation and a different DAC ASIC (who's implementation may or may not be more impervious to electrical interference, etc.) Casey So you an engineer and you asking someone else to run a subjective experiment for you instead of you doing it yourself? Interesting 🤔 |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,486
|
Post by DYohn on Dec 21, 2018 12:50:59 GMT -5
So, has anyone tried the A/B comparisons on the RMC-1 yet? I'm curious if it also makes things better there. The RMC-1 has a completely different USB Input implementation and a different DAC ASIC (who's implementation may or may not be more impervious to electrical interference, etc.) Casey Is the RMC-1 a Roon Ready player? |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Dec 21, 2018 12:55:21 GMT -5
Is the RMC-1 a Roon Ready player? A VERY good question... |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Dec 21, 2018 13:12:20 GMT -5
Nope, the RMC-1 isn't Roon Ready. So you'd have to use one of the Digital Audio Inputs: USB, S/PDIF, or HDMI.
And I can't do the test myself because I'm not planning on buying one till my birthday in May ... :-) I've also been asking current RMC-1 owners if any of them have hooked up a Linux system to the USB Input so I can get the output of "lsusb" and see what the USB (Vendor, Device ID) is and whether there's an entry for that tuple in sound/usb/quirks.c:snd_usb_interface_dsd_format_quirks(). So far no one has I guess since I haven't gotten a response ...
Casey
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,486
|
Post by DYohn on Dec 21, 2018 13:36:37 GMT -5
Nope, the RMC-1 isn't Roon Ready. So you'd have to use one of the Digital Audio Inputs: USB, S/PDIF, or HDMI. And I can't do the test myself because I'm not planning on buying one till my birthday in May ... :-) I've also been asking current RMC-1 owners if any of them have hooked up a Linux system to the USB Input so I can get the output of "lsusb" and see what the USB (Vendor, Device ID) is and whether there's an entry for that tuple in sound/usb/quirks.c:snd_usb_interface_dsd_format_quirks(). So far no one has I guess since I haven't gotten a response ... Casey So then you would not be testing apples to apples. A network audio player is NOT a digital input nor a digital format converter. |
|
|
|
Post by sahmen on Dec 21, 2018 13:53:28 GMT -5
For anyone interested in dissecting the innards of an excellent network player/roon endpoint, ...uhmm restricting matters to visual dissections alone, I propose one of these excellent Naim Audio units. The ND-555 is not the least expensive of the three, but it is the only one for which a white paper exists, which I have also linked to the page for your perusal:  Note: The ND-555 includes a digital board, a clock, or series of clocks, DAC, and some voltage regulators, and might also require an external power supply to do its magic... It is not a rendu of the sms-ultra, but at least, it has a white paper from which one might learn a few things, or not... What do I know? I am no expert  Here's the white paper : Happy hunting, but explore at your own risk : www.naimaudio.com/sites/default/files/products/downloads/files/ND%20555%20White%20Paper%20Final_0.pdfHere's another unit's white paper, if you want some encore: www.music-line.biz/cms/fileadmin/pdf/wp_nds_iss9.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Dec 21, 2018 14:02:31 GMT -5
So then you would not be testing apples to apples. A network audio player is NOT a digital input nor a digital format converter. I was thinking more along the lines of my friend Bill who had a Raspberry Pi 3 B+/Ropieee feeding his Teac NT-503 DAC via USB. He converted over to using an SOtM sMS-200ultra Neo and said the improvement was striking. So that's the "Apples to Apples" comparison I was thinking of ... I had thought that the Sonore microRendu was also an Ethernet Roon Bridge to USB? Or maybe I wasn't understanding how people were using it? Casey |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,259
|
Post by KeithL on Dec 21, 2018 14:51:34 GMT -5
No.... the RMC-1 itself is not a Roon endpoint.
However - the RMC-1 does have slots for expansion modules. So far, our firm plans for those include more channels, and a phono preamp... However, we are also considering various streaming options, so I wouldn't rule out a Roon endpoint... So, has anyone tried the A/B comparisons on the RMC-1 yet? I'm curious if it also makes things better there. The RMC-1 has a completely different USB Input implementation and a different DAC ASIC (who's implementation may or may not be more impervious to electrical interference, etc.) Casey Is the RMC-1 a Roon Ready player? |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,259
|
Post by KeithL on Dec 21, 2018 15:18:56 GMT -5
The various Rendu devices can actually be used in several different ways.... (One of the reasons they are able to sell a significant number of them is that they fill several different product niches.... none of which is "a plain old local music player".)
Also note that many of them are NOT bit-perfect....
For example:
- Logitech SqueezeServer automatically converts and re-samples sources when it needs to.
- HQPlayer is an interesting software player that offers MANY different up-sampling, conversion, and filter options; many of them sound quite different, and all of them alter the original bits.
- Spotify offers two different quality levels - but NEITHER is lossless.
- And DLNA is notorious for being rather opaque (some DLNA equipment will resample, or apply lossy compression, without telling you).
This can make it very difficult to compare apples-to-apples... And to compare the relationships between different reviews...
The MicroRendu lists:
Mode #1 - SqueezeLite Output - This output works with any Logitech Media Server and compatible controllers. Mode #2 - ShairPort Output - This is an AirPlay emulator that utilizes streams sent to it from a compatible source.
Mode #3 - MPD/DLNA Output:
Mode #3a - DLNA Output - This output utilizes streams from UPNP/DLNA servers and controllers. Mode #3b - MPD Output - This output is intended to work with a SMB mount.
Mode #3c - Songcast Output - This output accepts streams from your computer running Linn Songcast. The application is in Beta form.
Mode #4 - HQ Player NAA Output - This output utilizes streams from Signalyst's HQ Player running on your computer.
Mode #5 - RoonReady Output - This output utilizes streams from Roon.
Mode #6 - Spotify Connect Output - This output can be controlled by your computer or tablet running the Spotify application.
Also note that, if you read their claims, they all relate to "processing USB audio perfectly" (perhaps a little bit of hyperbole there). They in no way suggest that they ALTER the signal to improve it. They simply claim to deliver a virtually perfect signal without messing it up.
So then you would not be testing apples to apples. A network audio player is NOT a digital input nor a digital format converter. I was thinking more along the lines of my friend Bill who had a Raspberry Pi 3 B+/Ropieee feeding his Teac NT-503 DAC via USB. He converted over to using an SOtM sMS-200ultra Neo and said the improvement was striking. So that's the "Apples to Apples" comparison I was thinking of ... I had thought that the Sonore microRendu was also an Ethernet Roon Bridge to USB? Or maybe I wasn't understanding how people were using it? Casey |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Dec 21, 2018 15:22:37 GMT -5
Yes. And the Roon Core (Server) resamples anything that the Roon Bridge can't handle. In my case, with an old Logitech Squeeze Box Touch, the Roon Core has to down sample anything higher than 96kHz/24bit ...
Casey
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Dec 21, 2018 15:26:08 GMT -5
But the question I think that's being debated is: once a set of Digital Audio Data is sent from the Server out towards the DAC, assuming that no other Digital Transformations are done, what might be the cause of one (Ethernet->USB Transport->DAC) path sounding different than another identical path, but with a different Transport inserted? We've postulated Galvanic Isolation for DACs which have poor Electrical Isolation, and high jitter for DACs which do a poor job of handling that ...
Casey
|
|
