The "Official" Aurender Discussion Thread

[Vincent1234]

6 hours ago, biosailor said:

 

Yes, this is indeed a good review, glad for Aurender. As a matter of fact, this review made me thinking: I am using a N100H and till recently, I did like it. The only thing that for me to nag was the lack of Roon integration. So I switched back and forth between Roon running on my Mac Book Pro and feeding straight into my DAC (Aqua Hifi La Voce S2). I thought the sound from Roon was a bit more revealing, particularly in the highs. Si I went ahead and, maybe not quite logical, bought the small Auralic Aries Mini and set it up as a Roon endpoint. Not bad this little thingy! The highs are better on the Aries Mini (not so much, but still) but the bass response of the N100H is so much better and overall I do not hear so much improvement with the Roon/Aries Mini combo.

 

So I am totally torn: should I stay with my N100H that I basically like, despite it's somewhat shallow and unrevealing highs or is an upgrade to the much praised but very expensive N10 worth the money? Is the N10 so much more superior to the N100H? What I truly like with Aurender is the all-in-one package, whereas the Roon-Aries combo is a bit clumsy requiring Roon running on a core!

 

So, N10/N100H owners, what should I do? Thanks for input!

Hard to give a proper advice for a system I'm not familiar with. However, what I can tell you from my own experience is that the N10 was a very significant improvement from my previous X100L (so not an N100H, but a similar SQ). But obviously all the rest will depend on the rest of your audio system and also on your own ears. ? Any good dealer will/should be willing to demo an N10 in your own system and listening room.

[Vincent1234]

49 minutes ago, biosailor said:

 

I‘m aware that proper advice is hard to give. I did some careful comparison between the Aries Mini, Aurender N100H and the Mac Book Pro feeding my DAC. Aries Mini and Mac Book used Roon, while, naturally, the Aurender was using the Conductor app. All in all, the Aurender gave the most balanced SQ, meaning that bass and highs were best represented, while I still preferred a bit more extended highs from the N100H. But to me it was the winner.

The Aries Mini sometimes had an unpleasantly ringing sound in the highs, whereas the Mac Book straight into my DAC was really well extended in the highs, but bass was nowhere.

So, maybe thinking about the N10 for an upgrade is not a bad idea, particularly since everyone raves about it and telling me that it plays in a different league!

I also recognize the emphasis to the highs that Roon seems to be giving via Roon/Ethernet compared to the Aurender via USB (currently using a W20 with dCS Rossini). The latter might be somewhat 'darker' sounding than MQA over Roon/Ethernet, but it does have more ease, naturalness and a more 'analogue' sound to it. Although I am really impressed by many MQA tracks via Roon/Tidal, the authoritative sound of the W20 remains a very special thing indeed. Bass is also superior via the W20, no doubt about that. Maybe it's a characteristic of Ethernet, Roon and/or the RAAT protocol. Not sure..

And yes, the N10 is absolutely in another league than the 100 series! And the step up from N10 to W20 is another very big one..

[Vincent1234]

30 minutes ago, russellbobby said:

 I believe most N10 owners are using anything but the USB connection. AES I assume.  

I always used USB with the N10 and still am using it with the W20. Sounds great, but using an excellent USB cable makes a big difference. 

[Vincent1234]

1 hour ago, eganz said:

W4S  or alternative USB reclocker with Linear  power supplies, And consider isolation of your Internet… fuses and such will not make a noticeable difference to this device.  You may also benefit from AC power filtering or regeneration for your whole system.

Certainly, there is a simplicity to a more expensive one box solution, but  these may have substantial additional cost.

 

E

Of course it's very useful to check out these 'external' improvements, but truth be told that these will also improve the sound quality of an N10 or W20 and maybe the gains are even higher then. It's just a matter of how much you are willing and able to spend on your system as a whole. One of the most effective and significant improvements I have gained over the years was buying a dedicated high-quality audio rack. It didn't just improve the SQ of the server, but of the whole system, including DAC/CD, amplifiers and turntable. I would always start here as it improves your whole system in one go. Same goes for AC filtering, by the way.

[Vincent1234]

6 hours ago, biosailor said:

Who in the world needs all those extra outputs (SPDIF, etc.) as you so rightly state, is inferior to the USB output.

I  do not think this review was meant to give the idea that the other outputs are inferior to USB. As rightly stated it all depends on the combination with your DAC (and on the quality of your cabling!). In this case the DAC likely sounds best via USB. The other connections of the N10 are similarly excellent, as pointed out in several reviews. I can state from my own experience that the N10 is indeed much, much more than an 'N100 with more connections'. It's inherently superior to the N100 due to much more elaborate circuitry and a superior PS. And the W20 is so much better again than the N10. Really..

[Vincent1234]

19 hours ago, Foxman50 said:

I don’t see the point to a phone app, but do think the Android app should be improved 

Yes, that one's pretty old and Tidal is hardly supported. For the rest however it works pretty OK.

[Vincent1234]

18 hours ago, biosailor said:

I can see that some of the functions implemented in the iPad app would be difficult to implement on a phone. Not that it is important, I was just wondering. However, being someone working a lot on my MacBook Pro, a computer app would come in handy!

Harder to do on an iPhone than on an iPad or Mac indeed. However, the current Aurender Android app makes very clever use of menus that can be slided in or out at both sides of the phone screen. Should be repeatable on iPhone too. 

[Vincent1234]

3 hours ago, audio.bill said:

You are correct that with a full MQA decoding DAC there would be no apparent advantage in having the Aurender perform the first unfold. There are however some DACs (like the Berkeley Reference Series 2 MQA) which only act as MQA renderers, and as such require the first unfold to be performed earlier in the chain. Hope this helps!

There are other reasons too. Separating the first unfold from the second and have them performed by two different hardware devices generally improves SQ. Also this new Aurender feature is great news for dCS DAC owners like me! Previously we could only use Ethernet on the dCS Rossini to decode MQA, since the first unfold is being done by the dCS network card processor. Since this new update allows the first unfold to be done by the Aurender I can now use: A) my Aurender for full MQA and

B) my high-spec USB cable to connect to the dCS, which is expected to sound much better than via Ethernet directly to the dCS. Happy to report back after trying.

[Vincent1234]

11 hours ago, isquirrel said:

MQA now works, except that prior to using the Aurender MQA decoder my DAC would say MQA now it doesn't? I might ry it with Decoding switched off on the Aurender end. I have a feeling I just paid for something that was already happening. Plus the MQA sign on the Conducter app now shows 32 bit 192K whereas the DAC shows 24/96?

 

Anyone have any idea what is going on here please?

No issues with my W20 and using the first MQA unfold done by the Aurender. Using dCS Rossini as DAC. SQ Is absolutely fantastic this way. 

I do however have the same '32 bit' mentioned in the Conductor app. Obviously this is a small bug.

[Vincent1234]

6 hours ago, isquirrel said:

Did your Rossini process the MQA by itself normally? MY Select DAC does through the USB/MQA module and it shows MQA on the DAC's screen, but last night I toggled between the two (having the W20 do the unfold) and the normal way having the DAC do it, and I prefer the Aurender's sound by quite a margin. Its good that we are getting the same results.

Hi, I'm using the Aurender to do the first unfold. As mentioned in an earlier post this is the only way I can use my Aurender for MQA, since the dCS can only do the first unfold through Ethernet (using the network card processor for that job). The second unfold is done by its FPGA. Since the Aurender is doing the first unfold now I'm really happy to be able to use it now for full MQA too, connected to the dCS through a top quality USB cable (Crystal Cable Dreamline Plus) which is a big improvement. Also separating the two unfolds to be executed by separate hardware can lead to better SQ. The same goes for separate hardware when using Roon. I absolutely prefer using the Aurender for MQA now, compared to using Roon with Tidal MQA through the dCS's Ethernet input (using high quality cabling too). Simply sounds better. ?

[Vincent1234]

4 hours ago, agladstone said:

Good to know! I have an MQA DAC already, so I did not think upgrading the aurender to do first unfold was necessary, good to know it’s worth considering. I’m actually trying to decide if I should even keep Tidal or not so I will decide

that first. (I like Tidal a lot, I just have such an enormous personal music collection that I hardly ever have time or even remember to use Tidal, so it’s basically a waste of $20/ mo at the moment. 

I would certainly check out first to have the first unfold done by the Aurender. You might be pleasantly surprised! Maybe you can test it at your dealer without having to buy the license straight away?

[Vincent1234]

22 minutes ago, rwwjr44 said:

I have been listening to the MQA update (I don't have a MQA DAC) and find that is changes the sound of music, placement of instruments and general sound stage in such a manner that isn't better but (IMHO) worse. Music is generally more forward and louder but it doesn't sound better and there seems to be a bit more distortion in the rendering of cymbals and biting brass. 

 

I'll continue to test the MQA update but it seems to me not to be a audiophile tool but one that is aimed to a market similar to that of the Bose Lifestyle products.

Very strange result indeed. All the first unfold is doing is to give you an increased resolution which you would otherwise not get from the same files. It shouldn't change the soundstage or volume at all.

[Vincent1234]

19 hours ago, rwwjr44 said:

 

So you don’t hear any changes in the sound with MQA enabled?

Sure I do: higher resolution, more/better timbre, better dynamics, more space etc. But none of the changes that you described. Nothing gets worse, only better..

[Vincent1234]

8 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.

No. This applies only to MQA files (local or streamed through Tidal).

[Vincent1234]

1 hour ago, Mazza said:

 

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

NO changes to regular flac or other non-MQA files. I know for sure because my dCS only shows the automatically engaged MQA filter while playing MQA files. Obviously so.. 

Guys, any possible MQA filtering is done only by the DAC, not by the Aurender! Save of course for the A10's built in DAC. Let's not make things more complex than they are.

[Vincent1234]

2 hours ago, michaelD said:

Forgive me if this has already been asked but for those with a DAC that can unfold and decode MQA can you still do the unfold in the Aurender and just the decode in your DAC?  Do you need to switch something off in the DAC or does it just work?  The reason I ask is really like the looks that Aurender incorporatated into Conductor app and on their OLED display.  Would like to keep that but since at this time my DAC does do MQA just curious.  I understand the plan for Bricasti is to unfold and decode like many others do.  Also if you can unfold in the Aurender and just decode in the DAC does this affect the sound quality - I don't think so but also curious.

See my earlier post on separating the first and second MQA unfold. My experience is that having the first unfold done by the Aurender and only the second by my dCS DAC improves SQ. But YMMV.

[Vincent1234]

1 hour ago, rwwjr44 said:

IIRC ALL 16/44 files played through the MQA filter will be affected.

Incorrect. Why should they be played through an MQA filter on your DAC when they are non-MQA files..? You and your DAC will decide this; not your Aurender! Again, save for the A10 which has its built-in DAC. Also that DAC will only use MQA filtering for MQA files. Not for non-MQA ones..!

[Vincent1234]

1 hour ago, rwwjr44 said:

 

Interesting. I hear a difference playing virtually any non-MQA encoded 16/44 FLAC file (streamed from my N10) when the MQA switch is engaged. I will continue to try this.

Hmm.. interesting indeed. Shouldn't be the case, but you never know.. I will also try myself over the next days.

[Vincent1234]

7 hours ago, isquirrel said:

Okay have tested both high and low res Bit Perfect test tracks they all come up Bit Perfect Pass makes NO difference whether the MQA unfold switch is on or off.

 

So that means that no normal low or high res files are being affected in any way by the MQA unfold switch.

 

The only files which are affected and are upsampled are MQA files only.

 

There you have it.

Thanks. This was to be expected as this is obviously how it should be.

[Vincent1234]

34 minutes ago, justubes said:

Before the update, Aurenders play MQA up to24 bit  44.1/88.2 sampling rates.

 

So with the purchased MQA update, it will stream  up to 24bit 48/96khz to any dac.

 

So there is a a slight increase in sampling rates and may not be easy to hear the extra 3.9/7.8 khz increase in sampling rates.

 

 

....? I think you are mistaking here. Current resolution without the first unfold is 24/44,1 or 24/48.

After the first unfold (having purchased the license) you will get (max.) 24/88,2 or 24/96. Or more if you have a full MQA DAC.

[Vincent1234]

3 hours ago, justubes said:

Thanks for clarifying,  that was what i wanted to mean.  

 

The additional sampling rates will double for MQA playback. 

Yes, but some (not many) full MQA files are limited to only 44,1 or 48 Khz. So for these there's no higher sampling rate being offered.

[Vincent1234]

10 hours ago, russellbobby said:

I believe every file I have seen thru the A10  24/48 is the minimum resolution

I have seen a few 44,1 ones too. Doesn't really matter as the difference in SQ is very small.

[Vincent1234]

13 hours ago, Foxman50 said:

Apologies for continuing with this but its playing on my mind, if you pardon the pun.

 

Play one of these MSB provided files through several different streamers and while they will all illuminate the bit perfect light on your MSB DAC, they will undoubtedly sound different depending on the streamer.

 

im sure there are a myriad of reasons for this, but if they all illuminate the bit perfect light then how is the sound differing. More importantly if they can sound different whilst still being bit perfect, then is it not possible that the Aurender can alter the sound with its MQA filter enabled whilst still indicating bit perfect.

 

With my simple logic all streamers should sound identical, which is clearly not the case.

If all streamers sound the same Aurender wouldn't make different models and I wouldn't have upgraded to the W20 over time (via the X100L and N10), just like several others here have done. ?

So no, all streamers do not sound identical. That's what our hobby is all about. Better ones simply sound better, despite the fact that all likely have a bit-perfect output to your DAC.

Interesting question, though. Despite outputting the right 0's and 1's there are indeed very significant SQ differences. Audiophilia is a land full of mysteries. ?However, what the bit-perfect test proves is that no manipulation was done to the non-MQA files by the Aurender. Otherwise the test would have failed for sure.

[Vincent1234]

10 hours ago, NordicBob said:

I haven’t compared any of the models, but my dealer told me that the N10 was the sweet spot in the Aurender lineup so I took his word on it  and bought the N10.  

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.

[Vincent1234]

5 hours ago, Foxman50 said:

 

You cant play DSD.ISO files directly you need to extract to somthing like .dsf

 

there is a free PC utility called iso2dsd which works very well for this purpose.

 

a friend of mine ripped all my SACD's to ISO using a hacked playstation he got off the net. I was very sceptical about the whole process but they sound superb.

It's not needed to convert ISO's yourself as your Aurender will take care of extracting them to individual DSD tracks automatically. All you have to do is simply copy the ISO's to your Aurender and have a little patience. After a while they will be converted to invididual DSD tracks and you are ready to go.