The "Official" Aurender Discussion Thread

[AudioDoctor]

Does anyone here use the AES/EBU output on their N10 and find it better than the USB output?

[AudioDoctor]

I have the N10, and I've connected it to my (current) DAC through three outputs: AES/EBU, USB, and BNC coax.

 

Why all three? Simple curiosity about the differences.

 

And you know, lately I've been preferring the AES/EBU connection over the USB, but only barely preferring and more often hearing no discernible difference.

 

That's how great the Aurender N10 is, it seems, with rich and enveloping sound from all of its outputs.

 

Are you downsampling any DSD to PCM to play it via the AES/EBU connection?

[AudioDoctor]

So, with the X100 I have now, and the new software I have 6TB of internal storage and the ability to access music files on a NAS. The N10 has 4TB of onboard storage and the ability to access a NAS, other than the AES/EBU output, what would I gain from switching?

[AudioDoctor]

So, with the X100 I have now, and the new software I have 6TB of internal storage and the ability to access music files on a NAS. The N10 has 4TB of onboard storage and the ability to access a NAS, other than the AES/EBU output, what would I gain from switching?

 

edit: it seems that the N100H with NO spinning drive would be the better solution for music on a NAS.

 

edit: oops... Ha

[AudioDoctor]

In addition to the advantages already pointed out by Brian, remember that the N10 is also now available with an 8TB drive for a $500 premium over the 4TB version.

 

Or how about a 0TB version with just the SSD for music files on a NAS?

[AudioDoctor]

Don't think that's an available option. I only mentioned the 8TB option since you mentioned that you currently have '6TB of internal storage'.

 

Yeah I know, I was wishing... Aurender seems to have a lot of overlap in their product line IMO.

[AudioDoctor]

I am always hesitant to update software that's working fine right now.  Any problems with the new Aurender software I need to be aware of?

[AudioDoctor]

26 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Neither is actually the bit rate that really matters. Internet radio is all 44.1 or under, just like iTunes sells all 44.1 content. 44.1 can be incredibly lossy. The 24 bit word length is interesting, but I struggle to see this as a true indicator. Perhaps your DAC is getting 24 bit from the Aurender automatically. The true bit rate is likely something like 256 Kbps or 320 Kbps.

 

This.  44.1 is the sample rate, 24 bit is the bit depth, and the 256/320/ or 1441 (in the case of an uncompressed 16/44 file) kbps is the BitRate...  Your Aurender is adding zero's to pad the 16 bit file to 24 bits for your DAC.

 

 

[AudioDoctor]

Yikes...

[AudioDoctor]

I see I am not alone in my travels from the X100 to the N10.  I agree with the statements above, the difference is obvious and clear.

 

What is this I see about purchasing a software upgrade to enable MQA decoding in software?

[AudioDoctor]

I use AIFF because I find they sound better than either ALAC or FLAC, and I lose nothing regarding tagging.

[AudioDoctor]

Regarding MQA vs Hi-rez files on the hdd.  While I did not conduct this test on the Aurender, I did on my iMac using A+ with the direct mode re-enabled on a downloaded AIFF file I have in 24/96 matching the MQA file and found I liked the local file better than the MQA version.  My opinion, your mileage may vary, etc.

[AudioDoctor]

48 minutes ago, mjb said:

Do you/your ears find that FLAC converted externally to AIFF, and saved back to the Aurender for playback, sound better as well? I just can’t face re-ripping everything, but manually converting my favorite stuff might be an option. 

 

All the music I have downloaded is in FLAC and then converted to AIFF, so yes.

[AudioDoctor]

@Mazza AIFF is a straight PCM file just like wav, but in a wrapper that natively supports tags. I guess some are saying WAV supports tags now, but that wasn't always the case.  Second, I am an all Apple house.  Apple and FLAC did not always play well together either.  Lastly, storage is cheap.

[AudioDoctor]

5 hours ago, Vincent1234 said:

Nothing wrong with using AIFF, but as mentioned here before: WAV also supports metadata for years already and your Aurender will show them perfectly.

 

Great.

[AudioDoctor]

5 hours ago, Stiv said:

Can I ask what program you used to convert FLAC to AIFF?

 

https://www.dbpoweramp.com

[AudioDoctor]

6 minutes ago, christophhh said:

I just got my hands on an old Aurender N100 and wow does it sound like SHIT with Tidal (HiFi/Master quality). Sounds like hand cupping / loses so much low end.

In fact, it sounds worse through the N100 with Tidal than just plugging my Macbook directly into my DAC. Why would this be?

When I run 192/24 Flac files on the N100 it sounds amazing, though. 

My setup: Schiit Ragnarok > Schiit Yggdrasil > Monitor Audio Silver 300 > Aurender N100 

 

Are you sure the Aurender is running the software to decode MQA?

[AudioDoctor]

Has the Aurender had its time in the light only to be overshadowed by Roon?

 

I was thinking about this earlier while listening to some music. At the time it came out, I believe the Aurender was the best digital player there was available with the best user interface and sound quality. Since then however, Roon has come of age, been polished and become better, and the addition of an Optical Rendu device (regular or Signature SE) has, IMO, surpassed the Aurenders best efforts, and at a lower price point if you go for the more expensive Aurender models.

[AudioDoctor]

1 hour ago, Vincent1234 said:

I've yet to come across a better (or equally great) sounding Roon-based solution than my W20. My dealer confirms the same.

 

have you tried Roon via a Sonore Signature Rendu SE optical? 

 

edit: I'll grant I have not heard the W20. I had an X100, but the leap from the X100 to the Sonore Rendu optical signature SE was not small.

[AudioDoctor]

1 minute ago, Vincent1234 said:

No, I haven't tried it yet. Should it change my mind, do you think? Which Aurender did you use to compare it to?

I'm especially asking since I have owned and used the X100L, the N10 and the W20. Each next one is considerably better, but especially the step up between the N10 and W20 was very big in my system. I was very lucky to be able to buy a used W20 for about half of its regular new price.

 

I edited my comment, I had the X100.

[AudioDoctor]

well, I have decided to order a Small Green Computer Sonic Transporter i9 Optical with Roon and HQplayer, and have the 8TB of SSD storage inside it, this and the Signature Rendu SE optical ought to be one hell of a combination.

 

@The Computer Audiophile  you're welcome to bring a W20 over and we can  decide which is best. 😉

[AudioDoctor]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

Excuse me, I have the W20 and W20SE 😁

 

haha, good, I can beat them BOTH!

[AudioDoctor]

did you try turning it off and then back on again?

 

ha.

[AudioDoctor]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Yes, the N20 and Yggy are a great match. Thinking about this makes me want to listen to them right now :~)

 

The Terminator II and N20 is a different story. This wouldn't be my first choice pairing. I believe to get the best out of a Terminator, it should be paired with HQPlayer and the audio should be processed to 20 bits for PCM or DSD256 for DSD. The N20 can do limited upsampling, but that's not its main strength. 

 

Chris, if you haven't yet, try setting HQP to output 20 bits to the Yggy. Miska actually recommended 16 bits, but I found that far too harsh for my tastes.

 

[AudioDoctor]

12 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Updating a codec on a server like an Aurender would be extremely easy. The beauty of running Linux and an open codec. It’s just a software update. 

 

Sudo apt install ffmpeg

they Probably have a better way of doing that though.