Microrendu - First Impressions

[brubacca]

I haven't done a double blind test. I don't have the resources to do it. I can tell you that I go by the longevity test. I usually like it when I get it, but how long do I like it. How long has it made a my music enjoyable to listen to.

In my original thread about the mR I listed the gear that I subjectively thought it was better than. I certainly tried several other devices before I ended up with the mR. Squeezebox, Squeezebox Touch, Musical Fildelity V-Link2, Purpose Built Atom PC with multiple operating systems, Juli@ output card and finally a Naim UnitiQute with its BNC output.

I also went through several DACS. XDA-1, Rega Dac, Meridian Explorer, Naim UnitiQute, Schiit Gungnir MultiBit.


I also went through several amps: NAD C340, USP-1/UPA-200, Sherborn PA2-50, Naim UnitiQute, Rogue Audio Cronus Magnum.

Also several speakers. Paradigm Studio 20, Era Design 4, Sonus Faber Venere 1.5, Soliloquy 5.0 and lastly Dali Zensor 3.

So I have been on a long winding road and stand by where I ended up.

The mR was the best purchase I made and I wish I had started there. Source First!

[klinemj]

Nov 29, 2018 15:37:28 GMT -5 KeithL said:

I would never rule anything out - especially if I haven't experienced it myself (or tried).

However, I will admit to being somewhat uncomfortable in situations where there are no viable explanations for something that is claimed to be happening.

It leads me to suspect that, if there is something going on, then it's likely to not be what everyone thinks.

And I find it puzzling that the folks who sell the gadget seem to have no explanation as to why it should be reasonably expected to make any difference.

For example, what if it actually adds some horrible amount of jitter, or a little bit of phase shift, and a lot of people just find that this actually makes it sound nice instead of awful?

(Many people seem to enjoy the sound of tube equipment; yet, personally, I simply find neither the sound of it nor the measurements to be especially impressive.)

I would also point out that DLNA is sort of a major unknown.

(I have little confidence that a DLNA server will never alter the content along the way... or that it will tell you if it does.)

I would also ask, not as a challenge, but merely as a point of reference....

How many people have actually discovered a preference in a double-blind test (where expectations have absolutely no effect on the result)?

And, yes, I would be very interested to see it established, once and for all, that they aren't simply changing the bits to make the audio sound different.

A couple points...

1) If they "are" doing something that changes the bits, it sure does seem like a great % than is typical who try it say it's immediately obviously better. It's not like tubes where some like them and some don't. (Note: I have Class D and tubes and love both!) As noted in others posts I've made, chicagorspec picked it up in seconds. I did also. It's that blatant. Net...if they are doing something that changes the bits, I really don't care nor do the others who have reported their results. It sounds great.
2) I've told you before why I don't think the makers are sharing any details and are playing coy on this...they have something special and if they tell everyone what it is, it is easily copied by all - and their sales take a hit. They own the special sauce until others figure it out.
3) Regarding viable explanations, there have been many possible viable explanations for why their stuff sounds better. Just a few posts back, I shared what people at Computer Audiophile are saying. They may be wrong, they may be right. I don't know. And, I don't care. I have something that works. If I made audio equipment, I'd want in on the profits they are getting because it seems like they have minimal parts (minimal cost) and are charging a premium and getting sales...more all the time. But, that requires companies to admit they see a better way and invest in trying to get their own version.
4) Regarding blind test, go read wilburthegoose's recent comments. And, I have extensive experience w/blind testing...when something is so obvious and you have skeptics saying "wow", you almost don't need a blind test. That's what we have going on here.

Mark

[klinemj]

Also KeithL - re. DLNA...note that many of us reporting the sound improvements are not using DLNA. We're using Roon, which uses RAAT. So, what we're reporting is not some weird effect of DLNA. And, I didn't find any difference between Roon and other music players (like jRiver or direct via Tidal) when Roon and the others came from a PC to my DAC. I only find the difference when I go Roon to the rendu players.

Mark

[sahmen]

Nov 29, 2018 11:46:25 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

Well, the manufacturer has publicly CLAIMED (on this Lounge) that the bits ARE the same.

KeithL says that "It would be very surprising if files that have been confirmed to be the same by a bit compare sound different..." And in theory, I believe that statement to be absolutely true.

However, in practice, with NO OTHER CHANGE to my system than the insertion of the Microrendu upstream of my DAC, changes were definitely heard. And my experience isn't unique.

So something plainly is wrong. Either the MR is changing bits, or digital transfer theory is missing some important issues that (while apparently insignificant for raw data transfer) ARE significant for streaming music data. Is this possible?

I'm not an expert at digital data transfer, but I'm meeting for dinner tonight with the head of the LSU Supercomputing department (who IS). I'll be bringing the Microrendu for him to look at, and will relay the results of that discussion here. Hopefully we can disassemble / reassemble it without damage. He'll also probably copy the Linux OS from the Micro-SD card for analysis. He LIVES in the Linux world, and will know if any code has been added or altered. I hope we will also be able to do a bit-compare of the MR input vs. output & find out once and for all if the bits are truly identical.

So we'll hopefully be able to find out, ending all further speculation, if there's dog pee in the Microrendu beer or not.

Boomzilla

PS: Note that I own the Microrendu under analysis - it was NOT purchased directly from Sonore, and therefore any customer agreements not to reverse-engineer the device are null and void. I intend no commercial use of the data obtained by these analyses, and accept no liability, implied or expressed, for the publication of such data. Glenn Young - November 29, 2018.

Hi Boom:  I'm also not an expert, and am admittedly curious about what you and the Computer Guru at LSU will find out...  On the other hand, to help put things in perspective, even before the fact, (and, also, because I am feeling a little mischievous  this afternoon), I feel like reminding you about a couple of John Swenson insights, which you have actually heard about already, although it might still be pertinent to recall them at this moment :  namely, in sum, and according to my translation, that the microrendu (and products of its ilk) might sound the way they do, at least in one crucial sense, not because of something they actually contain (some secret, proprietary sauce), but because of something (in this case, noise generating "leakage current") they successfully block out, unlike other, more conventional computers or players .  It is the fact the micro-rendu (or the ultra-rendu) requires, and must act in tandem, with a capable external LPS in order to accomplish this voodoo of blocking  "leakage current," which opens the real possibility that there might, eventually, be no "secret sauce" to discover at all on-board the Microrendu itself, or at the very least, not much of a sauce....

so Exhibit # 1 From John Swenson's Tech corner Entry of July 4, 2016

Exhibit # 2 From a John Swenson post on a Computer audiophile Thread : September 4, 2017 .:     

I am merely wondering here, about what I might be tempted to tell any Guru who is about to dissect a golden goose...errr, a rendu,  in a hunt for a golden egg or two, .... What if the golden egg turns out to be too slippery to pin down,  too empty to be interesting, or completely MIA altogether?

   

[klinemj]

Nov 29, 2018 17:16:04 GMT -5 sahmen said:

Nov 29, 2018 11:46:25 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

Well, the manufacturer has publicly CLAIMED (on this Lounge) that the bits ARE the same.

KeithL says that "It would be very surprising if files that have been confirmed to be the same by a bit compare sound different..." And in theory, I believe that statement to be absolutely true.

However, in practice, with NO OTHER CHANGE to my system than the insertion of the Microrendu upstream of my DAC, changes were definitely heard. And my experience isn't unique.

So something plainly is wrong. Either the MR is changing bits, or digital transfer theory is missing some important issues that (while apparently insignificant for raw data transfer) ARE significant for streaming music data. Is this possible?

I'm not an expert at digital data transfer, but I'm meeting for dinner tonight with the head of the LSU Supercomputing department (who IS). I'll be bringing the Microrendu for him to look at, and will relay the results of that discussion here. Hopefully we can disassemble / reassemble it without damage. He'll also probably copy the Linux OS from the Micro-SD card for analysis. He LIVES in the Linux world, and will know if any code has been added or altered. I hope we will also be able to do a bit-compare of the MR input vs. output & find out once and for all if the bits are truly identical.

So we'll hopefully be able to find out, ending all further speculation, if there's dog pee in the Microrendu beer or not.

Boomzilla

PS: Note that I own the Microrendu under analysis - it was NOT purchased directly from Sonore, and therefore any customer agreements not to reverse-engineer the device are null and void. I intend no commercial use of the data obtained by these analyses, and accept no liability, implied or expressed, for the publication of such data. Glenn Young - November 29, 2018.

Hi Boom:  I'm also not an expert, and am admittedly curious about what you and the Computer Guru at LSU will find out...  On the other hand, to help put things in perspective, even before the fact, (and, also, because I am feeling a little mischievous  this afternoon), I feel like reminding you about a couple of John Swenson insights, which you have actually heard about already, although it might still be pertinent to recall them at this moment :  namely, in sum, and according to my translation, that the microrendu (and products of its ilk) might sound the way they do, at least in one crucial sense, not because of something they actually contain (some secret sause), but because of something (in this case, noise generating "leakage current") they successfully block out, unlike other, more conventional computers or players .  It is the fact the micro-rendu (or the ultrarendu) requires, and must act in tandem, with a capable external LPS in order to accomplish this voodoo of "leakage current," which opens the real possibility that there might, eventually, be no "secret source" to discover at all on the on-board the Microrendu itself, or at the very least, not much of a sause....

so Exhibit # 1 From John Swenson's Tech corner Entry of July 4, 2016

Exhibit # 2 From a John Swenson post on a Computer audiophile Thread : September 4, 2017 .:     

I am merely wondering here, about what I might be tempted to tell any Guru who is about to dissect a golden goose...errr, e rendu,  in a hunt for golden egg, .... What if the golden egg turns out to be too slippery to pin down,  too empty to be interesting, or completely MIA altogether?

   

I'm no expert, but I actually think that the positive results are due to a combo of that + great parts + minimalist code that helps ensure the step of translating from ethernet incoming signal to USB out is done better. What the "old" sound sounds like to me is that notes are very clearly "blurred/smeared" together. The "new" sound is that no blurring/smearing is happening. That's the easiest way I can explain what I hear. (And, if Keith is doubtful, I'll just say this..."prove me wrong")

Mark

[Boomzilla]

I respect sahmen's ears (and reasonable opinions) too much to disagree with him. It's also been stated that the USB inputs of the Stealth DC-1 are not totally isolated from USB power variations. So if these streamers are creating a lower noise floor for the USB power connectors, maybe that could have an effect (and also possibly explain why the streamers' power supplies have such a critical impact on the sound). But this is the purest of speculation on my part in the total absence of any facts. If power issues were the only "problem" fixed by the streamers than a galvanic isolation device would provide the same benefit (and sound) and for a WHOLE lot less money. But nobody I've read has made such a claim.

Boom

[klinemj]

Nov 29, 2018 18:28:10 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

I respect sahmen's ears (and reasonable opinions) too much to disagree with him. It's also been stated that the USB inputs of the Stealth DC-1 are not totally isolated from USB power variations. So if these streamers are creating a lower noise floor for the USB power connectors, maybe that could have an effect (and also possibly explain why the streamers' power supplies have such a critical impact on the sound). But this is the purest of speculation on my part in the total absence of any facts. If power issues were the only "problem" fixed by the streamers than a galvanic isolation device would provide the same benefit (and sound) and for a WHOLE lot less money. But nobody I've read has made such a claim.

Boom

And...the folks saying they are getting gains are getting gains with a big range of DAC's. Not just the DC-1. So...if that were it, all the DAC's would have to have that issue.

Mark

[KeithL]

To be honest, this stuff is more complicated than many people think, but it isn't THAT complicated.

If they've simply figured out a way to alter the bits so a lot of people think they sound better - then fine...

I would only have two problems with that.

First, since I want my bits delivered in their original condition, I have no interest in it.

Second, since they say they aren't doing that, that would mean that they're misrepresenting their product (AND I'm not interested in it).

If I want to alter the bits in a potentially pleasant way I have lots of other options to try.

There are really only a limited number of factors involved in digital audio.

And, no, I am not convinced that there are some mysterious "other things" that we don't know about.

In fact, I haven't seen even a hint that such things exist.

So, while there are a few things that perhaps "we should be paying more attention to", I do not believe that there are any "trade secrets they need to hide".

(From my experience, when people cannot or will not tell you something, it's usually either because it doesn't exist, or because it's so obvious and commonplace they're embarrassed to claim it as a feature.)

1)

Since most systems can already deliver the data perfectly - I see little room for improvement there.

2)

The clock at most points along the digital data path simply isn't especially critical.

Unless the clock is so bad that it prevents the data from arriving error free there is simply no benefit to making it better.

The only place the quality of the clock has any chance of affecting the sound quality is at the point where the data and the clock are presented to the DAC chip itself.

Most modern DACs either generate their own clock at the asynch USB input, or clean the clock internally using an ASRC.

This means that the quality of the clock at the input is largely meaningless... and this is doubly true for a USB input, which is packet based anyway.

While I can see a slight opportunity there with some older non-asynch DACs, I don't see much way to improve things there with most modern DACs.

3)

It makes reasonable sense that noise could get into the DACs through the USB lines (either through the power or ground line or even the data line).

This seems to be what they're claiming to improve... and it makes sense that this might make a difference with some DACs.

Good isolation at the USB output could improve this....

I suppose it's possible that a better power supply could also help (however, if their isolation was perfect, then their power supply wouldn't matter at all).

I see no way in which specifically using an Ethernet connection could or would improve matters.

The computer circuitry in the player is going to generate noise.... isolating it from upstream components is meaningless.

In all of the situations I cited (except altering the bits), we're talking about potentially significant improvements with certain DACs and under certain conditions.

For example, out of dozens of DAcs I've owned or tried, two or three of them required and showed some benefit from galvanic isolation.

Likewise, one or two had poor USB input sections, and so showed a benefit from using an alternative (a USB-to-S/PDIF converter).

Therefore, unless they are altering the bits, I simply cannot see how they could offer a significant improvement more than a small percentage of the time.

(And, if they wish to interest me, they're going to have to start with some sort of plausible explanation.)

I personally suspect that people would achieve bigger benefits, at far less cost, by paying more attention to less exciting issues.

(Like using a separate switch for your audio traffic than the one you use for video streaming and huge file downloads.)

I find it... entertaining... that an audiophile would consider spending good money for a better power supply for a gadget that's supposedly already well isolated...

But probably doesn't know the backplane speed of the Ethernet switch his music is going through.... or whether it is cut-through or store-and-forward.

(And doesn't see any problem in sharing bandwidth with streaming video... without even bothering to look at QoS issues .)

Nov 29, 2018 17:02:51 GMT -5 klinemj said:

Nov 29, 2018 15:37:28 GMT -5 KeithL said:

I would never rule anything out - especially if I haven't experienced it myself (or tried).

However, I will admit to being somewhat uncomfortable in situations where there are no viable explanations for something that is claimed to be happening.

It leads me to suspect that, if there is something going on, then it's likely to not be what everyone thinks.

And I find it puzzling that the folks who sell the gadget seem to have no explanation as to why it should be reasonably expected to make any difference.

For example, what if it actually adds some horrible amount of jitter, or a little bit of phase shift, and a lot of people just find that this actually makes it sound nice instead of awful?

(Many people seem to enjoy the sound of tube equipment; yet, personally, I simply find neither the sound of it nor the measurements to be especially impressive.)

I would also point out that DLNA is sort of a major unknown.

(I have little confidence that a DLNA server will never alter the content along the way... or that it will tell you if it does.)

I would also ask, not as a challenge, but merely as a point of reference....

How many people have actually discovered a preference in a double-blind test (where expectations have absolutely no effect on the result)?

And, yes, I would be very interested to see it established, once and for all, that they aren't simply changing the bits to make the audio sound different.

A couple points...

1) If they "are" doing something that changes the bits, it sure does seem like a great % than is typical who try it say it's immediately obviously better. It's not like tubes where some like them and some don't. (Note: I have Class D and tubes and love both!) As noted in others posts I've made, chicagorspec picked it up in seconds. I did also. It's that blatant. Net...if they are doing something that changes the bits, I really don't care nor do the others who have reported their results. It sounds great.
2) I've told you before why I don't think the makers are sharing any details and are playing coy on this...they have something special and if they tell everyone what it is, it is easily copied by all - and their sales take a hit. They own the special sauce until others figure it out.
3) Regarding viable explanations, there have been many possible viable explanations for why their stuff sounds better. Just a few posts back, I shared what people at Computer Audiophile are saying. They may be wrong, they may be right. I don't know. And, I don't care. I have something that works. If I made audio equipment, I'd want in on the profits they are getting because it seems like they have minimal parts (minimal cost) and are charging a premium and getting sales...more all the time. But, that requires companies to admit they see a better way and invest in trying to get their own version.
4) Regarding blind test, go read wilburthegoose's recent comments. And, I have extensive experience w/blind testing...when something is so obvious and you have skeptics saying "wow", you almost don't need a blind test. That's what we have going on here.

Mark

[brubacca]

I would say very respectfully that:

1- Don't assume they are altering the bits

2- if you haven't experienced one of these devices your opinion on them is invalid.

[liv2teach]

Finally convinced myself to pull the trigger on the Ultrarendu....went to Small Green Computer website for the special deal...all sold out. I so wanted to do a comparison between the Rendu and the Bluesound Node 2i...

[klinemj]

Nov 29, 2018 18:39:50 GMT -5 KeithL said:

To be honest, this stuff is more complicated than many people think, but it isn't THAT complicated.

If they've simply figured out a way to alter the bits so a lot of people think they sound better - then fine...

I would only have two problems with that.

First, since I want my bits delivered in their original condition, I have no interest in it.

Second, since they say they aren't doing that, that would mean that they're misrepresenting their product (AND I'm not interested in it).

If I want to alter the bits in a potentially pleasant way I have lots of other options to try.

There are really only a limited number of factors involved in digital audio.

And, no, I am not convinced that there are some mysterious "other things" that we don't know about.

In fact, I haven't seen even a hint that such things exist.

So, while there are a few things that perhaps "we should be paying more attention to", I do not believe that there are any "trade secrets they need to hide".

(From my experience, when people cannot or will not tell you something, it's usually either because it doesn't exist, or because it's so obvious and commonplace they're embarrassed to claim it as a feature.)

1)

Since most systems can already deliver the data perfectly - I see little room for improvement there.

2)

The clock at most points along the digital data path simply isn't especially critical.

Unless the clock is so bad that it prevents the data from arriving error free there is simply no benefit to making it better.

The only place the quality of the clock has any chance of affecting the sound quality is at the point where the data and the clock are presented to the DAC chip itself.

Most modern DACs either generate their own clock at the asynch USB input, or clean the clock internally using an ASRC.

This means that the quality of the clock at the input is largely meaningless... and this is doubly true for a USB input, which is packet based anyway.

While I can see a slight opportunity there with some older non-asynch DACs, I don't see much way to improve things there with most modern DACs.

3)

It makes reasonable sense that noise could get into the DACs through the USB lines (either through the power or ground line or even the data line).

This seems to be what they're claiming to improve... and it makes sense that this might make a difference with some DACs.

Good isolation at the USB output could improve this....

I suppose it's possible that a better power supply could also help (however, if their isolation was perfect, then their power supply wouldn't matter at all).

I see no way in which specifically using an Ethernet connection could or would improve matters.

The computer circuitry in the player is going to generate noise.... isolating it from upstream components is meaningless.

In all of the situations I cited (except altering the bits), we're talking about potentially significant improvements with certain DACs and under certain conditions.

For example, out of dozens of DAcs I've owned or tried, two or three of them required and showed some benefit from galvanic isolation.

Likewise, one or two had poor USB input sections, and so showed a benefit from using an alternative (a USB-to-S/PDIF converter).

Therefore, unless they are altering the bits, I simply cannot see how they could offer a significant improvement more than a small percentage of the time.

(And, if they wish to interest me, they're going to have to start with some sort of plausible explanation.)

I personally suspect that people would achieve bigger benefits, at far less cost, by paying more attention to less exciting issues.

(Like using a separate switch for your audio traffic than the one you use for video streaming and huge file downloads.)

I find it... entertaining... that an audiophile would consider spending good money for a better power supply for a gadget that's supposedly already well isolated...

But probably doesn't know the backplane speed of the Ethernet switch his music is going through.... or whether it is cut-through or store-and-forward.

(And doesn't see any problem in sharing bandwidth with streaming video... without even bothering to look at QoS issues .)

Nov 29, 2018 17:02:51 GMT -5 klinemj said:

A couple points...

1) If they "are" doing something that changes the bits, it sure does seem like a great % than is typical who try it say it's immediately obviously better. It's not like tubes where some like them and some don't. (Note: I have Class D and tubes and love both!) As noted in others posts I've made, chicagorspec picked it up in seconds. I did also. It's that blatant. Net...if they are doing something that changes the bits, I really don't care nor do the others who have reported their results. It sounds great.
2) I've told you before why I don't think the makers are sharing any details and are playing coy on this...they have something special and if they tell everyone what it is, it is easily copied by all - and their sales take a hit. They own the special sauce until others figure it out.
3) Regarding viable explanations, there have been many possible viable explanations for why their stuff sounds better. Just a few posts back, I shared what people at Computer Audiophile are saying. They may be wrong, they may be right. I don't know. And, I don't care. I have something that works. If I made audio equipment, I'd want in on the profits they are getting because it seems like they have minimal parts (minimal cost) and are charging a premium and getting sales...more all the time. But, that requires companies to admit they see a better way and invest in trying to get their own version.
4) Regarding blind test, go read wilburthegoose's recent comments. And, I have extensive experience w/blind testing...when something is so obvious and you have skeptics saying "wow", you almost don't need a blind test. That's what we have going on here.

Mark

And..."whatever"...you still have not listened to anything we are talking about - so to your point #1...you are out of date and missing reality. To you point that you "see no way in which specifically using an Ethernet connection could or would improve matters."...you really need to figure out why these others have figured out what they have. You not knowing doesn't really matter to me. They know. They will make the $ and Emotiva will not.

And...you don't get my point of my recent posts. Let me spell it out 1 more time in simpler terms: "These things sound really good. If Emotiva had an option in this category, I'd strongly consider it because the Emotiva value equation is always good. They do not have an option. Net...sale to me is not an option, and I will buy elsewhere. And, I won't buy a CD player from Emotiva...I stream, so I don't want a CD player. And, if Emotiva comes out with a thin client streamer, it needs to at least equal these options."

Mark

[klinemj]

Nov 29, 2018 19:15:49 GMT -5 liv2teach said:

Finally convinced myself to pull the trigger on the Ultrarendu....went to Small Green Computer website for the special deal...all sold out. I so wanted to do a comparison between the Rendu and the Bluesound Node 2i...

Sorry about your luck...I was doing my best to encourage folks to get the great Black Friday/Cyber Monday deals. And to be clear, I have nothing to gain from recommending them. Actually, I wish I did, but I do not.

Mark

[novisnick]

Nov 29, 2018 19:50:02 GMT -5 klinemj said:

Nov 29, 2018 19:15:49 GMT -5 liv2teach said:

Finally convinced myself to pull the trigger on the Ultrarendu....went to Small Green Computer website for the special deal...all sold out. I so wanted to do a comparison between the Rendu and the Bluesound Node 2i...

Sorry about your luck...I was doing my best to encourage folks to get the great Black Friday/Cyber Monday deals. And to be clear, I have nothing to gain from recommending them. Actually, I wish I did, but I do not.

Mark

Seems I’m the only one giving love to soTm! But I assure everyone that its well worth its money! I just haven’t had the time or energy to promote it like Mark has , obviously retirement agrees with klinemj

[klinemj]

Nov 29, 2018 20:00:44 GMT -5 novisnick said:

Nov 29, 2018 19:50:02 GMT -5 klinemj said:

Sorry about your luck...I was doing my best to encourage folks to get the great Black Friday/Cyber Monday deals. And to be clear, I have nothing to gain from recommending them. Actually, I wish I did, but I do not.

Mark

Seems I’m the only one giving love to soTm! But I assure everyone that its well worth its money! I just haven’t had the time or energy to promote it like Mark has , obviously retirement agrees with klinemj

In full disclosure, I didn't mean to leave out SOtM...I just didn't look at their BF/CM specials!

mark

[wilburthegoose]

Just listened to a few more songs. Joe Bonamassa to Linda Ronsdant The studio recordings sounded like we were in a studio.

And,
Oh my God. Colter Wall’s Songs of the Plains. Perfection.

[klinemj]

Nov 29, 2018 20:14:49 GMT -5 wilburthegoose said:

Just listened to a few more songs. Joe Bonamassa to Linda Ronsdant The studio recordings sounded like we were in a studio.

And,
Oh my God. Colter Wall’s Songs of the Plains. Perfection.

I am just loving see all the folks like you enjoying these toys...from my end, there are so many I have to thank for convincing me to take a leap...and sahmen for pushing me off the edge of the high dive,

Mark

[Boomzilla]

Alas, the head of the LSU Supercomputing department was unable to attend supper this evening, but the technical manager for our LPB station was. He and I discussed the Microrendu in depth (and data transfer protocols, and video/audio streaming, etc.), and he is in the shoes of KeithL who can't wrap his head around how any bit-perfect stream could possibly sound different from any other. It's Don's opinion that the Microrendu is tailoring the bits and that what's coming out is NOT what went in.

I don't know how to test that theory, but if we can figure it out, I'm willing to try it. To be a valid test, I'd have to get the bitstream off the Ethernet cable and compare it to the Microrendu's USB output. If I can accomplish this without buying test equipment, then I'm ready to go!

Boom

[klinemj]

Nov 29, 2018 20:58:09 GMT -5 Boomzilla said:

Alas, the head of the LSU Supercomputing department was unable to attend supper this evening, but the technical manager for our LPB station was. He and I discussed the Microrendu in depth (and data transfer protocols, and video/audio streaming, etc.), and he is in the shoes of KeithL who can't wrap his head around how any bit-perfect stream could possibly sound different from any other. It's Don's opinion that the Microrendu os tailoring the bits and that what's coming out is NOT what went in.

I don't know how to test that theory, but if we can figure it out, I'm willing to try it. To be a valid test, I'd have to get the bitstream off the Ethernet cable and compare it to the Microrendu's USB output. If I can accomplish this without buying test equipment, then I'm ready to go!

Boom

It has to be one of two things:
1) the rendu line and the like are "tailoring" the bits in a (almost universally in a positive way for all systems) favorable way.
2) other systems are messing up the bits in some way, and rendu series and the like are not messing them up.

I bet on #2. And, even if #2 is right...a measurement "might say" the bits are the "same". It's all about measuring the right thing in sufficient discrimination.

Mark

[wilburthegoose]

I sure hope Sonore has patented the Rendu

[novisnick]

Nov 29, 2018 20:09:56 GMT -5 klinemj said:

Nov 29, 2018 20:00:44 GMT -5 novisnick said:

Seems I’m the only one giving love to soTm! But I assure everyone that its well worth its money! I just haven’t had the time or energy to promote it like Mark has , obviously retirement agrees with klinemj

In full disclosure, I didn't mean to leave out SOtM...I just didn't look at their BF/CM specials!

mark

👍 I know my friend. Its just so much easier to speak of what one knows. I get it. Im bias Im sure, which really isn’t fair becI haven’t heard any of the Sonore products.  Apologies to all, especially you Mark

One thng is for sure, both products are making music better!