The "Official" Aurender Discussion Thread

[Mazza]

Errant TIDAL tracks

 

Hello All

 

I have just got a W20, finished uploading all my NAS stuff & been playing around with Tidal. I am having trouble deleting the odd track or two from my Tidal favourites/links. Their Tidal albums have deleted ok but what I am finding is that there are two that I just can't get rid of ..... the album deleted ok but not these two tracks. These two are ones where the full meta-data never came across, ie just showed the generic gold disc

 

I have tried all the usual things, reloading the database, stopping starting app, restarting the W20 etc but to no avail.

 

Driving me nuts! Any thoughts?

[Mazza]

On 24/08/2017 at 6:11 PM, agladstone said:

Album Art needs to be either .jpg OR .png , no other format works with Aurrender/ conductor. 

Also it only shows 2 album art photos added to the meta data and always (in my experience) add the front and back album art to the actual meta data and always label first one as front and second one as back specifically. 

Also alwya add a front.jpg and back.jpg (same as the one in meta data) to the albums folder. 

Try to keep Album art size between 1000x1000 to 1400 x1400 If possible. 

You can add all additional album art and scans into a folder within the album folder called Album Art for any additional photos and media. 

 

I didn't know about the "album art" sub-folder....brilliant thanks for that tip!

 

need to correct you on the folder.pdf bit though ..... i have found that this works for me (thanks Quboz for being non standard!) and displays same as folder.jpg

 

Thanks again

[Mazza]

7 hours ago, Foxman50 said:

Im confused what this update does. Does it change the sound of the standard flac files stored on the internal drive. By that i mean does the aurender now add some form of MQA filtering to all files played, or will it only do something to MQA encoded files.

 

I guess the answer to this would need to come from Aurender or someone suitably informed by them, otherwise it would be mere speculation.

 

I have to say, I haven't noticed any changes to SQ of my HDD or NAS .flac files if that helps you

[Mazza]

43 minutes ago, rwwjr44 said:

 

This update SHOULD NOT change the FLAC files stored anywhere. What is does affect is the stream of data as it it being played. Which means that the "sound" of the stream will differ in some way. IIRC ALL 16/44 files played through the MQA filter will be affected. Of course MQA encoded files will "benefit" most if you have a complete MQA decoding system (Aurender plus a MQA decoding DAC).

 

I hope this helps. 

 

You might be right but is this mechanism confirmed by Aurender?

 

I ask because if there isn't an MQA 'flag' to the incoming data stream, then I would expect the incoming data stream to bypass the MQA decoding/rendering routines & 'jump' to the normal & pre-existing routines. Why waste processing power & risk potential new SW bugs on something that is unnecessary? To do otherwise, you are into a potential wholesale re-write of the software and good software is modular in nature so that shouldn't be be necessary.

 

As I said in my previous email, IMO this is all speculation unless you get it direct from Aurender.

[Mazza]

1 hour ago, Vincent1234 said:

I think your dealer is right. ? The N10 is absolutely great. I was lucky to being offered a used W20 in perfect condition. Would probably not have bought it at full retail price. The step up in SQ however is very big once again, as it should be.

 

Me too! Managed to get an ex-demo W20 for the price of an N10. No brainer 

 

When demo'd both at dealer I found the SQ similar, not a stellar difference, but the W20 definitely had the edge on soundstage, precision and that extra bit of detail even on 44.1/16. That sold it for me because I use near/mid field monitors.

 

But TBH, if i hadn't heard the W20, i'd have been more than satisfied with the N10; it's definitely a very very fine bit of kit.

[Mazza]

For all my backups I have been using Sync Pro, works with my NAS, Timemachine, Windows PC, portable drives, portable players and Aurender. So long as you can set up a folder share on any device, it will see it on the network.

 

Has very powerful options for filtering out stuff and does incremental backups et etc.  Definitely recommended 

[Mazza]

59 minutes ago, biosailor said:

 

This is so good! Following the Aurender thread, it looks as if Aurender owners try to reach the heaven: there was quite a bit of chat about the N10 being 'infinitely' superior to the N100H, and it even went further, saying how much superior the W20 flagship over the N10 is. I was really tempted to upgrade to the N10, but finally someone steps in for the N100H. Although with a modification that is hard to evaluate. I sometimes wonder if audiophiles catapult themselves into etheral spheres where marginal improvements are exaggerated. I'll stick dearly to my N100H for a little longer! 

 

I agree with you, I have the fortune to have a W20 which I got ex-demo for the price of an N10. When A/B’ing the two at the dealer, yes you could hear differences but they were subtle and to be honest unless you were A/B’ing you’d struggle to find them. That is not to say one is better than the other necessarily but that they do sound different and you’d probably prefer one’s sound signature over the others. Most of those differences might even be psychological because you ‘expect’ the more expensive kit to sound better and so, as you say, you exaggerate the differences to yourself. Certainly I would have been more than satisfied with an N10 if I hadn’t A/B’ed with the W20. If I hadn’t got the W20 for the price of an N10, then for me,  there is no way it is worth the difference in price.

 

Personally, I don’t think the aural memory is as reliable as we audiophiles make out and we do exaggerate what we “hear” to justify a decision we have made. 

For me, the statement that kit improves “after a period of burn in” that is so often cited in reviews is something we physiologically do to cover buyer’s remorse (did I really need to upgrade?), buyer’s pride (I am really glad I upgraded) or buyer’s disappointment (perhaps it will improve after ‘burn in’). When you get into the heady heights of true high end audio,  it is more likely your head is getting used to the newer sound (speakers excepted)

 

So enjoy the N100H, and be smug in the thought that you have probably got yourself an audio bargain with nigh-on the same performance of the more expensive kit ....... that is! until that upgrade ear worm starts nagging at you!

[Mazza]

I use Metadatics and SongKong on the MAC

 

SongKong is great for doing a BIG sort out because it has a batch mode; it tidied up my whole collection to a consistent standard. But easily used just for one album. Tend to use Metadatics for smaller batches of files to sort out, a bit less automated which can be better at times.

 

Unfortunately, neither are free

[Mazza]

Curious isn't it. 

 

I remember reading somewhere that the higher amp rating on the none-DAC usb's is to support low-power external HDD drives such to avoid their use of a separate power supply. Perhaps the usb module is limited in the total power it can deliver to all sockets and is therefore that is why they are signified to be different? As to why they are different  models, perhaps that is down to the motherboards used for the N100/N10. The N100 is a newer design

 

On the point raised by jon2020, I get that the higher amp-rated connections potentially have lower impedance, but in reality is this likely to make any significant difference? I thought that the biggest problem with usb connections is the potential 'noise' carried on the 5v rail, not the impedance?

[Mazza]

5 minutes ago, jon2020 said:

 

Mazza,

I guess the proof is in the listening. As the constant is 5V, then any sonic differences if at all would be down to the difference in the amp rating.

 

For the N100H in my system, the 0.4A port sounds better than the 0.1A and it's a night and day difference. 

 

Interesting, obviously you are onto something

[Mazza]

jon2020,  didn't you find something similar happening when you were explaining your trials with USB 3.0 a couple of months ago?

 

You say that the differential gain seems to be causing a change in replay volume levels ...........I recall an article I read sometime ago (sorry can't remember where) about the vagaries of auditioning kit (brings me back to some of previous posts!) by a very well respected audio journalist. He basically warned that one of tricks or fooleries used when auditioning, and can catch you out particularly when trying to compare A vs B, is that our ears are incredibly sensitive to changes in volume. Literally we can differentiate to a fraction of a dB and the louder the music is, the more dynamic, pacy and exciting it sounds and THAT is often the reason when we listen to A vs B, we might prefer one over the other. Think about it, music played loud is always more exciting than when played at subdued levels.

 

Might go some way to explaining what you are finding?

[Mazza]

3 hours ago, biosailor said:

If I stream files, I stream them via Qobuz, that offers up to 24/192 FLAC files. I guess this depends on the recording in question, but would there be a noticeable difference between a high-resolution FLAC compared to an MQA file? I guess no definitive answer can be given.

 

I don’t wish to open up the whole MQA debate but as a general rule anything I stream from Tidal or Qobuz, whether MQA or not, Hirez or not, has a much much  lesser SQ than the equivalent rip or Hirez download played from my HDD (W20).

 

Depends on the album version of course and when there are multiple copies to stream, typically one will sound  better than the others much. The amount of variety in SQ continuously surprises me

 

so I tend to use the streaming for sampling to decide if I want to buy the download

[Mazza]

14 hours ago, biosailor said:

I too, store my music files locally on the N100H. Qobuz comes in handy when I want to see what's new. Just before the MQA upgrade for Aurender was released, I terminated my Tidal account, because I so much preferred Qobuz over Tidal. Might want to re-consider a subscription just to check out MQA on my Aurender. 

 

I had both too (Qobuz on trial) but went the other way and cancelled the Qobuz account and kept Tidal. For me the reasons were:

 

- greater library choice on Tidal

- seem to be more hires files on Tidal inc MQA

- Tidal is cheaper!

 

i really wanted to go with Qobuz because that is where I buy my downloads and you can do the auto upload thing to the Aurender, but there you go!

[Mazza]

If you go to Qobuz on Conductor and select the ‘my music’ tab & all your purchases are there. You can then add them to library which I was told will upload them though I have always downloaded them and mounted manually on the HDD

[Mazza]

2 hours ago, mjb said:

And if/when you cancel your subscription, will they stop playing or automagically disappear from the library?

 

I don’t know what happens but my trial streaming subscription ends soon, so I can tell you then. But it doesn’t matter because you can download your purchases at any time

[Mazza]

Why not set up your own blind test?

 

Prepare various versions of the same track, set them up as a playlist and let the Aurender random play them on a loop. 

 

Maybe be a bit more objectivity that way. 

[Mazza]

6 minutes ago, Emerald Core said:

 

so how does the N100C coax potentially sound better than USB ? 

I assume it was released to based on their research that Coax could bring a better sound quality. Otherwise why bother re-release an already good product with one extra output? someone correct me if i was mistaken. 

 

 

compatibility with legacy DACs?

[Mazza]

11 hours ago, AudioDoctor said:

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

 

Hi Audiodoctor ....

 

I don't know what you mean about tagging, but all 3 formats have the same capabilities for tagging? I universally use FLAC and I am not wanting for any tagging options. The Aurender doesn't read all of the fields anyway, AFAIK. 

 

The point raised on audio formats is much much much discussed on this and umpteen other audio forums. The subject must have cropped up hundreds/thousands of times across all the different Audio forums. Basically, everybody expresses subjective opinions on the difference. A few think there are differences, a few think there are none. And most peoples views contradict the others, so make what you will about that fact.

 

The reality is probably that the differences between the major uncompressed formats on whatever platform are imperceptible and such differences if there are any are attributable to other variables.

 

For example, I can listen to a MQA track from Tidal and compare it to the same recording on my HDD and do you know what, sometimes they sound (subtly) different and sometimes they do not, sometimes one sounds 'better' and sometimes the other one does .... but here's the rub ....

 

.......  I have not changed the audio format, but there are variables in the audio chain somewhere doing something. Mains quality, internet traffic, temperature, air pressure, humidity, my mood, my head having moved back 3-inches, my ears having a p**sed off day.... who the hell knows .... but somewhere there is a variable and it's not the audio format.

 

Do I care, no! I just let my ears adjust for 5 mins and get on with the listening!

[Mazza]

9 minutes ago, mjb said:

AIFF is perhaps more Apple and tag friendly, though otherwise I don’t think there’s a reason to choose one over the other. Aurender will display and play either. Personally, I’d choose AIFF simply because it has nothing to do with Microsoft. 

 

Microsoft! ...... Good point! 

[Mazza]

28 minutes ago, jon2020 said:

Very sexy new product  - cd player/ripper/server at $5,600 :-

 

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/the-2018-munich-high-end-show/

 

Not for me, but if I was looking for the first time it would certainly have some merits.

 

I see a reference to enabling meta data editing through Conductor and that could be useful/convenient at sometimes, so I guess we should expect a Conductor revision soon ................

[Mazza]

4 minutes ago, Jeff_N said:

Agree with Mazza, it would be nice to be able to edit metadata in the Conductor. Am I the only one who transfers albums from computer to Aurender, then sees the metadata's wrong, deletes the album from Aurender, corrects the metadata on the computer, then copies the album to the Aurender again? Seems crazy and I must be missing something.

 

Heh Jef_N, have same workflow as you ..... music files get copied all over the place, so good point, the ACS10 not so useful in such situations. 

 

I have same issue as you, many albums meta-data files need to be altered to suit the Aurender and the alterations seem to be specific to the Aurender vs much more 'tolerant' other devices. Also, if the meta-data doesn't suit it sometimes won't show a track at all and with no warning either ...... HDtacks downloads seem to be one of the worse offenders.

[Mazza]

On 7/30/2018 at 3:59 PM, michaelD said:

Just got my W20 over the weekend.  The cloning process worked great but it does take some time.  Boy it is heavy compared to the N10 by alot and the N10 looks so small - the N10 is not as its a full size unit but next to the W20 it does.

 

Initial sound there is much more separation of instruments or vocals along with much more depth.  Still doing break-in so more on this later.

 

I know what you mean ... I upgraded to the W20 from an Auralic Aries and compared to that the W20 is a monster in *every* sense!

 

[Mazza]

5 hours ago, agladstone said:

If the A10 was available when I purchased my Aurender, that’s definitely the way I would have gone. I suspect there must be benefits (and the obvious convenience) to having the server internally connected to the DAC vs. going through USB cable and all the associated galvanic isolation and usb de-crapifiers, etc. 

I suppose the only downfall to the A10, is that with a N10 and a separate DAC, you can replace just the DAC when available DAC technology starts to become upgraded to a new standard / features, etc and still be able to use the N10 on the server side (or vice versa). 

 

When I moved over to the W20, one of the drivers was to significantly reduce the 'box count' as well as improve the SQ. So I got rid of the DAC, the pre-amp, the power amp & the speakers and replaced the whole lot with a single-pair of Active speakers with built in DAC (Kii Three's). The Kii's connect direct to the W20 and the W20 is even in a cupboard. Wife loves it!

 

The whole system is about as simple as you can make it with minimal signal paths and I'm sure that must help with the SQ. It certainly sounds the best that I have ever achieved and I have been playing at audiophile for 30+ yrs. The downside? Well, a bit like the A10, you are locked in to the DAC technology which is built into the speakers but TBH, at this sort of level, they sound great and changing would be just for changes sake.

 

The total integrated approach of the A10 is a nice touch and besides the convenience, I can see that it will definitely strike a chord with people like me who are tired of the multiple boxes and cables dominating the room and really like the Aurender sound and philosophy.

[Mazza]

On 7/22/2018 at 9:23 PM, JoshT said:

I am considering either an N100H, N100C or A10 and have a few questions:

 

1.  Can these products stream to multiple endpoints for a multi room system?  I’ve been assuming the answer is yes, but realized I’m not sure I’ve seen that question addressed   For example, could I use the Aurender in my main system when I’m in that room, and then stream to a network ready DAC in another room when I’m in the other room (or an Ethernet player that outputs to a DAC by USB or S/PDIF)?

 

I am not sure you can, because the Aurenders aren't really streamers, they are players (with storage) or they an endpoint for NAS, Tidal or Quboz via ethernet. All output is via USB or S/PDIF, depending on what model you have. 

[Mazza]

36 minutes ago, russellbobby said:

I am a firm believer in a preamp in the system. I like Tubes somewhere in the chain as I have a MicroZotl 2.0s. I have tried the Aurender as a standalone and it is very good, just not as good as with the preamp.  

 

Adding anything to the audio chain, particularly after the DAC is just adding some coloration of some form or another, tubes are well known for that ..... not as radical as the speakers of course!