Msb Network Renderer module quad dsd experience

[Alexis777]

... has anyone tried the new msb network renderer?

I'm trying on my analog dac + analog power unit, compared with the new module usb quad dsd, and I'm very indecisive ..

 

I was expecting a big leap in quality, compared to my mac mini with A+, heavily modified with lps, but instead I found a sound just different ...

airier and perhaps more detailed the quad usb, fuller and richer down the renderer.

 

Not sure which path to choose.

I did not clearly understand what the best sound, between the two.. :-(

 

And go directly to the transport umt +?

 

Some suggestion's?

 

Thank you... :-)

[baddog]

Hello. Well I am certainly interested to learn more. Currently I have the MSB Quad Rate USB module. I do find it an improvement over the standard USB Module with my Analog DAC. However I am also eager to try out the MSB Renderer.

 

So, do you have both the USB Quad Rate USB Module and the Renderer module? I cannot quite tell what you meant in terms of results from your listening?

 

How was the sound quality different between the Quad rate module and the renderer?

 

Were you saying the USB Quad rate module had more air and detail then when using the Renderer? And you found the Renderer to be fuller and richer than the USB Quad Rate Module?

 

Interested to learn more.

 

Thanks.

 

Barr

[Priaptor]

I am using a Diamond Plus IV and just installed the QUAD USB. To me it was a major upgrade.

 

I can't speak for the Analog, but one of the big benefits regarding MSB is the us of their PROI2S, which until now, was not being utilized by their USB. The QUAD DSD v DSD128 wasn't the big deal but the utilization of the PROI2S is something I have been waiting for them to implement for a year and half. To me it is a night and day difference of what I already thought was a great DAC. "Theoretically" both the renderer and QUAD USB off load a bit perfect data stream to their PROI2S buffer clocked accordingly so both should sound pretty similar. I am hoping to compare both but my intuition is sound will be similar and user choice as to the interface will play a bigger role than sound. But we will see

[baddog]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Howie. Your logic does make sense, and if they do in fact sound comparable, it is as you said down to user choice on interface and whether one prefers using software that changes the stream sent to the DAC ( up sampling, conversion to DSD, filters, etc).

 

In regards to the Analog DAC, any module plugged into it connects to their I2S input bay. So perhaps the end result is more dramatic for you based on having a Diamond Plus IV. Regardless I concur that MSB hit one out of the park here. I am still evaluating the changes, but it is most certainly an improvement over their base USB module.

 

As you said, we shall see, hopefully sooner rather than later.

 

Barr

[tranz]

Good to finally hear reports from it in the wild, although I think a language barrier might have caused confusion.

 

I have been intrigued about the quality since reading about it, especially as a possible means to skip USB and SPDIF conversion and going directly to I2S.

 

It makes me wonder whether the noise issues John Swenson has been addressing with the Regen unit has been addressed by MSB as well, and how. Whether ethernet (in the renderer) or USB receiving chips, this potential packet noise has to be handled somehow. For those with a Quad USB module, have you also tried it with a Regen to see whether it makes any difference?

 

Was the Quad USB better than using an USB-SPDIF converter into a SPDIF input module on the MSB? I remember listening to the prior USB input and hating it.

 

Would love to hear more feedback before plonking down serious cash on the renderer. Is it better than the Aries feeding an MSB DAC?

 

Cheers

[baddog]

As fate would have it I have both the USB Quad module and a Regen. As fate would have it these arrived within a day of each other. As fate would have it I have an Aries feeding my Analog DAC.

 

I can conclusively state that the USB Quad module is a definitive improvement over the base level USB module, so much so that I purchased it. I can state that the Regen via the standard USB module offers an improvement in sound quality. I cannot yet attest to how the combination of the Regen and the USB Quad module compare to either the Regen with the standard USB module or to the USB Quad module. Only so much time in a day.

 

And yes, I guess the million dollar question is which sounds better, an MSB Analog DAC using the Renderer module or the combination of an Aries to an Analog DAC using a Regen and USB Quad module. This is of course ignoring anything related to usability, features, and other optional capabilities.

 

As I a sure you are aware, any of the input modules for the Analog DAC connect directly to the I2S interface.

[tranz]

As fate would have it I have both the USB Quad module and a Regen. As fate would have it these arrived within a day of each other. As fate would have it I have an Aries feeding my Analog DAC.

 

I can conclusively state that the USB Quad module is a definitive improvement over the base level USB module, so much so that I purchased it. I can state that the Regen via the standard USB module offers an improvement in sound quality. I cannot yet attest to how the combination of the Regen and the USB Quad module compare to either the Regen with the standard USB module or to the USB Quad module. Only so much time in a day.

 

And yes, I guess the million dollar question is which sounds better, an MSB Analog DAC using the Renderer module or the combination of an Aries to an Analog DAC using a Regen and USB Quad module. This is of course ignoring anything related to usability, features, and other optional capabilities.

 

As I a sure you are aware, any of the input modules for the Analog DAC connect directly to the I2S interface.

 

Sweet! I am at the edge of my chair. Keep us posted! Cheers.

[bigblue]

I am also considering the Renderer for my Analog Dac. In a conversation with the people at MSB they described the biggest benefit as "it’s harder to get the settings wrong as the renderer is the device decoding the audio files".

 

I asked them about their thoughts regarding SQ with the following set ups:

 

 

Set up no. 1 would be a NAS connected to The Renderer.

Set up no 2 would be a NAS connected with ethernet to the Auralic Aries and then USB to the Analog Dac.

 

The reply was: the SQ should be the same.

[tranz]

Thanks for sharing BigBlue. I would have thought/hoped that the MSB renderer bypassing USB would be better.

[baddog]

@tranz and as general information for everyone else.

 

While I have not yet had the time to do some more a/b tests, I can tell you that the Analog DAC paired with the Aires, the USB Quad module, a Regen and a LH Lightspeed cable sounds fantastic. Well recorded music sound magnificent, whether redbook, high resolution or DSD. Poorly recorded music still sounds poorly recorded, regardless of format.

 

I should note that all of my devices, save for the Aries are connected directly into a Silver Circle Audio Pure Power.

 

I am getting a Corning USB cable on Friday, I couldn't resist the hype and temptation to try one out of myself.

 

More to follow.

[tranz]

Hi bplexico,

 

Great to hear it. Keep it coming. Would love to be able to sell all my USB workarounds (Berkeley, IFI gear, etc.) ?

[Vitor]

Great thread! I'm also waiting to hear more impressions about the quad USB vs renderer for the analog dac. At the moment in using a sOtm sms100 with the standard USB option with good results. Was expecting to try the Regen but it seems that it's already sold out. Was it an incremental upgrade with the standard USB?

 

Keep them coming!

[baddog]

Hello Vitor, when you say "was it an incremental upgrade with the standard USB", what do you mean?

 

Are you referring to the sound quality of the USB Quad module, pricing, or something else?

[Vitor]

Hi b, what I meant was to ask was if the Regen with the standard usb module was an effective upgrade. Sorry for not making it clear and for the OT.

Please let us know your opinion of the quad usb vs renderer. In theory (if one uses a non optimized server, like standard pc or mac) the renderer option seems the best choice, but...

[baddog]

Vitor - the short answer is yes. The Regen was a worthwhile addition to the standard USB module offered by MSB. Not night and day, but definitely improved the overall musical quality.

 

I am still comparing the USB Quad with and without the Regen, and will get to comparing the standard USB module with Regen to the USB Quad. Just haven't had enough time this week.

 

And yes, when I get a Renderer I will be certain to provide an update as I know that is what everyone is most interested in understanding.

 

Barr

[Vitor]

Any news on this?

[baddog]

Currently I have my MSB Analog DAC connected directly to either a PC using Roon, a Mac Mini using Roon or my Aries. The connection between MSB Analog DAC to PC/Mac/Aries is directly with a LightSpeed USB cable.

 

This is using the QUAD Rate USB module. It sounds wonderful in all three instances.

 

I delayed the Renderer till later in the month because I am juggling alot of stuff at the moment.

[dubselect]

Has anybody else heard NetRenderer yet?

 

It is a very interesting device! It would be interesting to know how does it sound in comparison with USB2 Basic 384 and Premium Quad USB2.

I heard Analog DAC with USB2 384 and Aurender X100s. Will NetRenderer be an upgrade in comparison with this setup?

 

P.S. I suppose that NetRenderer will not show all it's potential now as far as it is still raw. And I believe MSB will continue to work on it and eventually it should sound as good as their external network transport (Universal Media Transport V).

[Vitor]

Anymore comments on this?

[Vitor]

Hum...this thread is very quiet...

No one bought/tested the MSB Renderer or it's too good that people don't have the time to share opinions on forums?

[mitkey]

i wonder USB 2 quad would be a better option compared to renderer ?

[firedog]

Don't remember where I read it, read of one buyer who compared and prefered the new quad module to the renderer.

[bigblue]

At the 2015 High Ends show in Munich I met with Jonathan Gullman (Larry's son) who was involved in the creation of the Renderer. According to them/him the standard USB and Renderer produced very similar SQ. The benefit with the latter was the ease of getting things right. The Quad should be one step ut.

[tranz]

According to my ears...

 

1. MSB Renderer beats the Quad USB handily

 

2. Quad USB with Uptone Regen is better than without. Immediate difference! The MSB renderer still is better than Quad USB with Uptone Regen

 

3. Quad USB is better than the prior version USB module by quite a bit. The prior version was unlistenable to me.

 

With that said, I am getting rid of all my USB gadgets if anyone is interested. (Berkeley Audio Alpha USB to SPDIF converter, USB Regen Amber, IFI iUSB Power, IFI Gemini 1.5m cable, IFI iPurifier, Straightwire 1.5m USB, MSB XLR AES/EBU input module)

 

Cheers

[bigblue]

Thank you Tranz for the input.

May I ask what you used when assessing the products. Was it earphones or speakers?