Article: Aurender S10 Music Server Review

[Priaptor]

Chris states he used Berkeley with:<br />

<br />

Aurender, Mac and C.A.P.S 2.0<br />

<br />

While he states the Aurender was best with XLR and the C.A.P.S. equaled the Aurender or was better compared to the poor performing Mac solutions, we have to assume that he was using ALPHA USB solutions for both C.A.P.S. 2.0 and Mac, the former much better than the latter. <br />

<br />

So I think the questions persist and requires clarification. I am not sure there is any misinterpretation of what Chris wrote. <br />

<br />

[Part-Time Audiophile]

Well, maybe I'm being dense. But IIRC, Chris has a handful of converters on hand. He also has more DACs than I do. Isn't his reference a dCS DAC?<br />

<br />

Anyway, maybe I should be reading this review more carefully and maybe I just missed something. Dunno. That's why I'm asking for clarification.

[earflappin]

Might have been nice to use another DAC/USB-AES/SPDIF converter in the review to see if the server preference conclusions would have been the same. The BADA Alpha USB box is new and hasn't even been reviewed yet. Perhaps the reason for the poor OS X USB showing has something to do with the design of the BADA Alpha USB box (e.g. more sensitive to noise, etc.)? I guess we will learn more as posters who have purchased the S10 post their own reviews.

[Part-Time Audiophile]

From the Meitner MA-1 Review:<br />

<br />

"As quickly as I noticed something wrong with the previous configuration [Mac Pro via USB directly into the DAC] I noticed how right this setup [C.A.P.S. v2.0] sounded with incredible details and no digital edge. Running the Meitner Audio MA-1 via USB from the C.A.P.S. v2.0 server was every bit as good as the Aurender S10 via AES if not slightly better in the bass regions. Attack and transients were simply stunning using the Meitner recommend ASIO driver and J River Media Center. Comparing this async USB setup to the Aurender's S/PDIF (RCA) output was no contest as the C.A.P.S. v2.0 server surpassed it in sound quality. Lacking a BNC output may be an Achilles heel for the Aurender S10 if an electrical S/PDIF connection is required. ... We discussed the Mac Pro and how much better many of the newer computers may be when paired with the MA-1. This is because many companies are using laptop type motherboards and power supplies whether the computer is a laptop or desktop. in fact the C.A.P.S. v2.0 server is much closer to a laptop than desktop when considering the internal components. My subsequent results when using a MacBook Pro laptop fit snugly with this explanation. Using a MacBook Pro with Amarra 2.3 and iTunes the sound quality was pretty close to the C.A.P.S. v2.0 server and Aurender S10."<br />

<br />

Which now makes me wonder about the Aurender review comments where he swept all the Macs into a single, unseemly-sounding pile. Is there something to untangle here? Are all Macs dull and lifeless (by comparison to the Aurender), or just some?

[earflappin]

Interesting. My take from this is:(1) the asynchronous USB interface used by both the Meitner and BADA Alpha is sensitive to some combination of noise/latency and (2) the OS X USB interface has more noise/latency than the S10 and CAPS server USB interfaces. <br />

<br />

The question is why should this be the case in a well designed/executed asynchronous interface? Does USB have inherent limitations which preclude audio interface designers from implementing links that are immune to these factors? Does FireWire have these same limitations, or is it different given that there is a dedicated chipset involved? <br />

<br />

FWIW, I have not noticed any sonic degradation in my FW interface to my LIO-8 DAC when I have simulated varying CPU loads or tried linear power supplies. One can imagine the havoc such a scenario would wreak on pro audio engineers if the SQ was being modulated by CPU load and power quality. <br />

[SoundQcar]

"Interesting. My take from this is:(1) the asynchronous USB interface used by both the Meitner and BADA Alpha is sensitive to some combination of noise/latency and (2) the OS X USB interface has more noise/latency than the S10 and CAPS server USB interfaces."<br />

<br />

I am using the Meitner through its USB interface with an everyday HP Laptop most would consider to be inferior, and certainly no better than a MacBook Pro, and my system sounds absolutely glorious this way! I also had run it the same way with an older Toshiba laptop running XP. Again...great sound. The Meitner doesn't appear to be picky, at least not here anyway.<br />

<br />

Bob

[The Computer Audiophile]

Guys - Again, please don't read into the review in an attempt to glean information that isn't there. Speculating on every single piece of hardware and software trying to come to a conclusion won't get anyone anywhere. It's impossible for me to include every single detail about every configuration, software, and hardware that I've used when making conclusions. I try to include items in the Associated Equipment section as a reasonable list. <br />

<br />

In my opinion people are making mountains out of molehills and drawing completely unfounded conclusions based on the information in the review. Concluding anything about the Alpha USB based on my review of the Aurender S10 is unwise and will lead you anywhere but where you want to be. Asking questions about USB as a whole and FireWire as a whole are equally unwarranted based on my review of the Aurender.<br />

<br />

I didn't list specifics when describing my Mac playback therefore it should be read as a general statement.<br />

<br />

Here is what I said:<br />

<br />

"Currently none of my Mac OS X based machines can best the sound quality of the Aurender S10 in my system. Compared to the Aurender via AES my Macs connected via USB sound very sluggish and washed out. There is no life to the Mac based music compared to the S10's all around vibrance and solid yet controlled bass reproduction. Playback from the Aurender via TosLink at 4x sample rates (176.4 and 192 kHz) was nothing to write home about. The sound was closer to my Mac systems but in certain areas it was very lackluster."<br />

<br />

[Encore]

Well, Chris, I think what I and others are--still--puzzled about is how apparently all of your Macs were sluggish in Aurender review, whereas as only the Mac Pro was found wanting in your Meitner review, where the MBP was 'pretty close' to the CAPS 2.0 and the Aurender. A few lines of speculation from you as to how this can be could probably settle the discussion ...

[Mark Powell]

Chris did his test honestly, to the best of his knowledge and ability, which I believe is pretty high. Why don't you leave it?

[earflappin]

"In my opinion people are making mountains out of molehills and drawing completely unfounded conclusions based on the information in the review. Concluding anything about the Alpha USB based on my review of the Aurender S10 is unwise and will lead you anywhere but where you want to be. Asking questions about USB as a whole and FireWire as a whole are equally unwarranted based on my review of the Aurender."<br />

<br />

Chris, I'm not sure to which specific posts your above statement refers, but perhaps you are underestimating the implications of your own words?<br />

<br />

In the Aurender review it seems clear you tested the following combinations: (1) S10>AES>BADA DAC, (2) Mac(s)>USB>BADA USB>BADA DAC and (3) CAPS>USB>BADA USB>BADA DAC. Then you conclude #2 is the worst sounding ("very sluggish and washed out") while #1 and #3 were similar with you preferring #3 in some cases.<br />

<br />

Why is it not fair to conclude at least the following from your test results?<br />

(a) The BADA USB performs better when fed from the CAPS versus a Mac. Why? Certainly this begs a more in-depth discussion about the USB interface if SQ varies so much from the CAPS to a Mac.<br />

<br />

(b) The BADA DAC sounds better when fed AES from an S10 versus USB from a Mac. This is a huge statement IMHO. You are basically saying that if you seek the best SQ as a BADA DAC owner you should use an Aurender>AES or CAPS>USB over the Mac>USB. Why is this the case? Certainly this begs a more in-depth discussion as I would think most BADA DAC owners who have waited patiently for the BADA USB to come to market expected it would perform optimally regardless of music server. I would have hoped that was a design goal for BADA. We all know the source sensitivities of AES and now it appears we have the same problem with the USB interface. <br />

<br />

Since your Meitner review also indicated that SQ was variable as a function of the server used with the USB interface doesn't that finding tend to also confirm that USB is sensitive to a some set of variables in the server? This seems to warrant much more discussion. And I don't think it is unfair to ask the question if FireWire is equally sensitive.<br />

<br />

Just my 2 cents. <br />

[Priaptor]

I couldn't agree more. <br />

<br />

Your logic is how I see it. <br />

<br />

Quite frankly as I stated before his review kind of raises more questions than it answers<br />

<br />

Reviews should give direction and as you point out these last couple of reviews raises rather than answers many questions. Chris's clarifification didn't do much to clarify. <br />

<br />

In the end our own ears are the best judge assuming you have access to equipment to listen to and/or compare which is becoming harder and harder to do.

[Part-Time Audiophile]

No one is (okay, I'm not) challenging Chris. I do, however, have a question about a single point in his review, and there's a reason why I asked for a clarification. There are two reviews where the Aurender is mentioned. In one, the conclusions about the MacBook Pro "as a source" are different than they are with the other, yet, in that second review no mention is made of a change of opinion or any one thing that led him to change his mind.<br />

<br />

This in no way invalidates or undermines his excellent work plowing through the research to do this (and the other) review. I simply and automatically assumed that it was an oversight and not any attempt to obfuscate. Personally, I think that's absurd. Writing reviews, like the ones that Chris has offered, is actually <em>work</em>. Things get said one way when they might have been said another. Things get overlooked. Things happen. Things change. Things things things. Reviewing isn't easy, straightforward, or even simple. It's a PITA -- especially when you know you have a couple hundred rather over-informed readers that are going to analyze the heck out of every single word. Ahem.<br />

<br />

The question I have/had is pretty simple -- what's changed from the Meitner review to the Aurender review? In the Meitner review, a MacBook Pro performed on par (or close to) the Aurender/C.A.P.S. server. However, in the Aurender review, this one product which was called out in the last review, was not here but was lumped in with the rest of the Apple products and condemned for lackluster performance. That's a perfectly fine and legit conclusion to come to, but it is in (apparently) direct contradiction to what was said about the two very same products in the review prior to this one. That's odd, or at least it is to me. And my calling attention to it isn't fixating on flaws or in any way attacking Chris. I'm just confused. And Chris' clarification ... well, didn't clarify it. <br />

<br />

Look, it isn't always politic to stack rank devices -- no manufacturer wants to be on the bottom, or even anywhere but the top, now do they? Of course not. But if the review "went there" anyway, which Chris did (and rightly so), why is it bad to ask that reviewer to be explicit? <br />

<br />

If separating out the sub-par performance within the Apple lineup wasn't part of the review methodology, no worries. He just had to say that, and we move on.

[barrows]

I would even submit that it is not usually a good idea to stack rank any components in a reviewing context without a lot of caveats. The fact is that system context is so important, that precisely ranking components in a review is just likely to lead to misunderstandings of the components performance.<br />

I would not recommend anyone try and draw such precise conclusions from any review. If a review makes one curious about something, then one must follow up and do their own evaluation of that thing in their system-there is no other way to draw a precise conclusion of how something might sound in your own system context.<br />

My suspicion, from Chris' review observations, is that the SOtM card present in the CAPs, gives it a bit of an advantage from USB output vs. a standard computer USB output. Because I am curious about this, I am going to try a server with a SOtM card for USB output in my system.

[Encore]

Socrates, if I had had the ability and the time this morning, I would have written what you did :-)

[Elberoth]

Just brought the Aurender home. It is a loaner from my dealer. In the next two weeks I'm gonna do some comparisions vs my HP laptop running JRiver media software via Halide Designs The Bridge interface. <br />

<br />

I also should have my hi-end serwer ready in a week or so (which will employ all SOtM bits Chris recommended) which should make this comparo even more interesting. In fact I will have two such a servers on hand - one with SOtM USB card (to use with The Bridge) and the other one with RME HDSPe AES sound card installed (AES/EBU out + clock in from dCS clock). Both serwers will be running the new JPLAY software, which I belive is the best there is.<br />

<br />

One thing the images do not tell, is how heavy the Aurender is. It is build like a proverbial brick. The build quality is absolutely first rate - you have to see it to appreciate it. It is up to dCS, Burmester, Vitus standard. Amazing.

[earflappin]

"The question I have/had is pretty simple -- what's changed from the Meitner review to the Aurender review? In the Meitner review, a MacBook Pro performed on par (or close to) the Aurender/C.A.P.S. server. However, in the Aurender review, this one product which was called out in the last review, was not here but was lumped in with the rest of the Apple products and condemned for lackluster performance. "<br />

<br />

Socrates7, unless I am missing something (and like that has never happened before...:-)), the thing that is different from the Meitner and Aurender reviews is the new BADA USB interface. If one assumes the "associated equipment" list in both reviews is definitive, the BADA USB was not used in the Meitner review and it was the only USB interface used in the Aurender review.<br />

<br />

Given Chris's findings, and reports from other CA posters that CAPS/USB offers better SQ through some DACs than OSX/USB (and also Windows/USB ?) one is left to conclude that not all USB interfaces are created equal. This is likely not a surprise to most, but perhaps the degree of sonic impairment has been underestimated? <br />

<br />

What is most surprising to me, assuming I have not misinterpreted the Aurender review findings, is that the new BADA USB interface used with the BADA DAC and an OS X server sounds inferior to the Aurender/AES and CAPS/USB. <br />

[The Computer Audiophile]

<i>"If one assumes the "associated equipment" list in both reviews is definitive, the BADA USB was not used in the Meitner review and it was the only USB interface used in the Aurender review."</i><br />

<br />

The associated equipment lists are not definitive. Also, the Alpha USB is not the only interface listed in the associated equipment. The TAD C2000 has several digital inputs including async USB.<br />

<br />

I highly recommend people stop trying to get more out of this review than I explicitly wrote. There are tons of variables over the several months I usually use components for review and components in here for me to simply use as needed. Deducing a scientific-type of answer from a subjective review that can't possible provide all the details needed to even begin a thorough analysis is doing yourself a disservice. <br />

<br />

The list of possible influences on sound quality could be very large, not the lest of which is me and my ears. <br />

<br />

[shiloh]

Wow!!!! It's really nice~I love it

[Mark Powell]

I will be very interested in what you find. Mainly, perhaps, in what it sounds like just 'by itself'. Comparisions between it and other things are not really so important, but having two other servers to compare it with will be useful too.<br />

<br />

I have a Naim, at about half the price of the Aurender. It sounds superior to my Windows/regular unmodified laptop, which is correctly set up.<br />

<br />

There is a Linn server at twice the price of the Aurender. Wonder what that sounds like?

[Elberoth]

@Mark - impossible to tell how the S-10 sounds by itself, since it lacks the analog outputs. Basicly, it's just a digital transport, so you need an outboard DAC to make it work.<br />

<br />

On the other hand, Naim HDX/NDX and Linn Klimax DS are a complete solutions, and although they do have the digital outs, they may not be optimised to be used as a transports only.<br />

<br />

I will try to compare it to the Scarllati transport ($32,999) - that one should be a tough to beat and should tell us how good computer audio really is in absolute terms. <br />

<br />

[Priaptor]

denigrated by some on these forums, I have to take exception with your comments relating to the review of the Aurender and prior reviews regarding associated equipment.<br />

<br />

There are those of us, who do read your reviews and actually make decisions, whether it is to purchase or try to get a trial piece, based on those reviews; both big efforts and/or expense.<br />

<br />

I think you need to read the Aurender and Meitner reviews, see the inconsistencies and address them, or not if you think they follow some understandable logic.<br />

<br />

Trust me, I am a doctor, understand that my stereo isn't saving lives, etc., BUT, it is a huge source of my entertainment and I was considering the Aurender until I read your review. As I said, it raised more questions in my mind than it answered.<br />

<br />

I really think a short followup to explain our questions would help. <br />

<br />

[jacquesr]

Hi,<br />

<br />

I am very interested in hearing about what you will hear...<br />

<br />

If you are up to it, I am willing to send you a souped-up Mac Mini for comparison...<br />

<br />

Where are you based?<br />

<br />

PM me if you want. Tx

[barrows]

"I will try to compare it to the Scarllati transport ($32,999) - that one should be a tough to beat and should tell us how good computer audio really is in absolute terms."<br />

<br />

Unfortunately, no DAC using SPDIF input is going to tell one how good computer audio can be, in "absolute terms". One of the strong points of computer audio is the possibility of using asynchronous interfaces-which when implemented well, offer lower jitter than what SPDIF is capable of.<br />

<br />

Of course, I agree that comparing the SPDIF output of the Aurender, with that of the Scarlatti, will be a very good comparison of how two SPDIF based approaches perform.<br />

<br />

[Elberoth]

<i>'Unfortunately, no DAC using SPDIF input is going to tell one how good computer audio can be, in absolute terms. One of the strong points of computer audio is the possibility of using asynchronous interfaces-which when implemented well, offer lower jitter than what SPDIF is capable of.'</i><br />

<br />

True, but then the dCS has the advantage of clock I/Os, which combined with the external dCS clock, and a suitable computer card with clock I/Os (like the RME I'm using) should take care of SPDIF generated jitter and maybe even exceed the performance of well implemented USB input.

[Elberoth]

Thank you for your kind offer, but I'm not from the US, so that would be a bit complicated.<br />

<br />

I have a friend running a MacMini/Amarra though, so I may try his Mac at some point vs my PC based server running JPlay.