Regardless of who has the superior algorithm, heavy lifting tasks can be performed much more efficiently and with much higher precision on chips and FPGAs. This is a well known fact....

[MikeJazz]

The Signature Rendu does not have a computer or OS in it.

 

So, there you have have a possible solution...

[Paul R]

The Signature Rendu does not have a computer or OS in it.

 

Ahem- you think it plays Tidal by magic or something? (grin) Yes of course it has a computer in it, and it is running some sort of OS, guaranteed.

 

Or are you just pulling my leg a bit and I totally missed it?

 

-Paul

[Superdad]

Ahem- you think it plays Tidal by magic or something? (grin) Yes of course it has a computer in it, and it is running some sort of OS, guaranteed.

 

Or are you just pulling my leg a bit and I totally missed it?

 

-Paul

 

Sorry Paul, but you are incorrect. The Signature Rendu uses a UPNP renderer module based on a Blackfin DSP chip. No OS is involved, though Sonore has worked with the OEM on custom firmware. You might want to read the Rendu product page closely to get a better idea of how the product integrates. It is a terrific piece. [Full disclosure: Jesus--from Sonore--and I are friends as John has worked on projects for both of us.]

[Paul R]

Sorry Paul, but you are incorrect. The Signature Rendu uses a UPNP renderer module based on a Blackfin DSP chip. No OS is involved, though Sonore has worked with the OEM on custom firmware. You might want to read the Rendu product page closely to get a better idea of how the product integrates. It is a terrific piece. [Full disclosure: Jesus--from Sonore--and I are friends as John has worked on projects for both of us.]

 

Uh - Alex, you are quite wrong here. The Blackfin processors from Analog Devices are most definitely computers on a chip. You can load a whole bunch of different software packages on them.

 

In fact, they are 16 or 32 bit, and depending upon the chip, run at 200 or 400 mhz, hold 256mb or more of DDR RAM, and run on an on OS called VOS. Kind of a neat development environment for it as well. (Crosscore is the name, and it is pretty darn cool actually.)

 

The board I have here is a low end ADSP-BF707BBCZ-4, and I am targeting it for an imaging application. But it is easy as pie to buy the *software* components that support USB and other technologies for the board.

 

Of course, the processor design is slanted towards doing the sum of products really fast, but it very much still a computer mate, and requires someone with software skills to make it operate. The Rendu is running a lot of software, just not Windows or MacOS.

 

(grin) I really run into that all the time - it isn't running Windows so it is not a computer! It just has software that makes it work! it isn't a computer!! So There!! (/grin)

[Superdad]

(grin) I really run into that all the time - it isn't running Windows so it is not a computer! It just has software that makes it work! it isn't a computer!! So There!! (/grin)

 

Hi Paul:

I knew that at the time I wrote it, but since I did not think of the Blackfin as a general purpose CPU, not even running a stripped Linux, I was not thinking of it as a full computer. But as you say, it does have full caching, DMA and support for a lot of things and runs some of the typical embedded OSs.

 

Of course at some point the line where we want to call something a computer blurs. Ultimately everything has to be programmed, be it a CPU, a DSP, a FPGA. a CPLD, etc. And each have their own programming environments. Even a USB and Ethernet oriented chip like the popular XMOS family has its own complete language and development tools.

 

You are more experienced by far in these areas than I am, and maybe you can put forth for us a definition of what qualifies a processor as a "computer with OS." Is it certain memory or I/O architectures? Is it structure and programmability? Is it something about the loading of its OS, whatever that might be? Or do you just want to base it on speed (which would then include a lot of chips we don't usually think of as CPUs)?

 

Help us out here.

[Blizzard]

With HQ Player, set aside some time to experiment with all the different filters and modulators and settings generally. The related threads have great info from various members.

 

The bottlenecks are similar in all the tech I have seen because of protocol packets as well as that much, much lesser known phenomenon hiding in that DDR3 Flipping Bits thread.

 

Try everything you can try (including USB + USB Cables + Regen), it's worthwhile.

 

Yes I'll be trying all. I have a very good Furutech GT-3 0.5M USB cable. I don't that that's the weak link. I don't have a REGEN, but the renderer I'm working on won't use USB anyways so not going to put too much more into USB technology.

[Blizzard]

This is why HQ Player (main computer) + Ethernet + Optical isolation + smaller program by Miska (NAA device) -> DAC is what you should try and compare it with.

 

Yes it will likely be better, but will still use a USB interface. Unless Miska shares with me his "NAA direct to DAC with no USB" idea. Perhaps he's thinking of using a Beagleboneblack I2S outputs. Can they handle DSD 256?

 

My renderer will smoke that setup and will be able to be used with HQplayer. This is when the real comparisons can take place. I'll also be doing DSP on the FPGA's. But that can be bypassed and substituted for convoluted DSP on HQplayer. This way I can run both the FPGA's and HQ player through the paces.

 

Only problem is my system is going to be 4 way fully active. On a 2 channel setup that will require 8 channels of DSP, Filtering etc up to DSD 256. On a 5 channel setup, that will be 20 channels of DSP, filtering etc. I won't find a computer powerful enough to handle doing that. However with FPGA's, I'll have 1 dedicated for every 4 channels. So will be able to handle it no problem.

 

So in the end I need to determine what's better, a super computer handling the DSP/Filters/modulation, or multiple FPGA's with a lightweight computer.

[Blizzard]

Yes it will likely be better, but will still use a USB interface. My renderer will smoke that setup and will be able to be used with HQplayer. This is when the real comparisons can take place. I'll also be doing DSP on the FPGA's. But that can be bypassed and substituted for convoluted DSP on HQplayer. This way I can run both the FPGA's and HQ player through the paces.

 

Only problem is my system is going to be 4 way fully active. On a 2 channel setup that will require 8 channels of DSP, Filtering etc up to DSD 256. On a 5 channel setup, that will be 20 channels of DSP, filtering etc. I won't find a computer powerful enough to handle doing that. However with FPGA's, I'll have 1 dedicated for every 4 channels. So will be able to handle it no problem.

 

Oops

[Paul R]

Hi Paul:

I knew that at the time I wrote it, but since I did not think of the Blackfin as a general purpose CPU, not even running a stripped Linux, I was not thinking of it as a full computer. But as you say, it does have full caching, DMA and support for a lot of things and runs some of the typical embedded OSs.

 

Of course at some point the line where we want to call something a computer blurs. Ultimately everything has to be programmed, be it a CPU, a DSP, a FPGA. a CPLD, etc. And each have their own programming environments. Even a USB and Ethernet oriented chip like the popular XMOS family has its own complete language and development tools.

 

You are more experienced by far in these areas than I am, and maybe you can put forth for us a definition of what qualifies a processor as a "computer with OS." Is it certain memory or I/O architectures? Is it structure and programmability? Is it something about the loading of its OS, whatever that might be? Or do you just want to base it on speed (which would then include a lot of chips we don't usually think of as CPUs)?

 

Help us out here.

 

Have to give that more than superficial thought Alex, at least if you want a real answer. In some ways, it is like the definition of porn, hard to put into words, but I know one when I see one.

 

The lines have blurred, and will only get less clear as time goes on. My iPhone has more general purpose computing power than existed in the entire world the year I was born. Is it a phone, or a pocket sized computer?

 

My desktop has much more processing power, RAM, and DASD than every computer that ever existed through the year I was born, all added together. Yet I make phone calls on it all the time. Is it a computer that makes phone calls? Or is it a phone too?

 

The processors in my Jeep greatly exceed the capacity of my phone as well. While I do not think of my Jeep as a computer, it definitely has plenty of computers in it. Heck, the drive in the music system is at least 40g, and I want to replace it. Too small!

 

My DAC has more raw processing power than the 360 computers on the Apollo spacecraft that went to the moon and back. Not sure I would trust it, or even three of them, to replace those trusty old 360's though!

 

I don't honestly know that anyone can say with authority where the computer ends and the appliance begins, especially in audio. I do know the current trend of people buying a huge chunk of processor power, then proudly claiming they don't have a computer playing their music is wrong though.

 

That isn't anything more than marketing hype IMO. Bryston being one of the earliest and most egregious examples I think. Thing was Linux of course, not even anything near as specialized as the Rendu. But marketed to the anti-computer crowd.

 

Oh, I am not pointing fingers at you by the way. Sorry if it looked that way.

[firedog]

If we had some measure or guidelines to go by, I would agree with you. But most modern computers, even the $350 models from Best Buy, are very good indeed. Far better than their counterparts were ten, or even five years ago. Quiet, both environmentally and electrically, powerful, usually easily upgraded, and for the most part, very very reliable. It was a shock for me to realize just how good they really are!

 

I really begin to suspect that the vast majority of the products offered to Audiophiles as music servers are really not any better than they gear they probably already have. It all seems to come down to how you use what you have...

 

But that is a bit of an outlier viewpoint. Certainly there are folks who disagree.

 

-Paul

 

Paul, the problem with your position is that it is very absolute and seems to be based on a preconception, and not familiarity with some of the better "servers" available.

 

There are multiple, consistent reports that servers from companies like Aurender, Antipodes, Baetis, etc provide audibly superior performance over a CAPS or MacMini, not to mention an off the shelf $350 unit. I doubt they are all wrong. Some of those devices come with personalized service to best match the server to your setup remotely. I don't think Best Buy offers that with their $350 models.

 

Whether those servers are worth the cost is a different question. Saying they are overpriced is not the same as saying they don't sound better.

[Blizzard]

Paul, the problem with your position is that it is very absolute and seems to be based on a preconception, and not familiarity with some of the better "servers" available.

 

There are multiple, consistent reports that servers from companies like Aurender, Antipodes, Baetis, etc provide audibly superior performance over a CAPS or MacMini, not to mention an off the shelf $350 unit. I doubt they are all wrong. Some of those devices come with personalized service to best match the server to your setup remotely. I don't think Best Buy offers that with their $350 models.

 

Whether those servers are worth the cost is a different question. Saying they are overpriced is not the same as saying they don't sound better.

 

 

General purpose computers are never going to work as good as purpose built ones will for audio. They are fine if used as servers, but the ultimate system is a server/renderer setup. In this case the server can be a computer, or a NAS.

[Jud]

Paul, the problem with your position is that it is very absolute and seems to be based on a preconception, and not familiarity with some of the better "servers" available.

 

There are multiple, consistent reports that servers from companies like Aurender, Antipodes, Baetis, etc provide audibly superior performance over a CAPS or MacMini, not to mention an off the shelf $350 unit. I doubt they are all wrong. Some of those devices come with personalized service to best match the server to your setup remotely. I don't think Best Buy offers that with their $350 models.

 

Whether those servers are worth the cost is a different question. Saying they are overpriced is not the same as saying they don't sound better.

 

As I'm sure you realize, the servers you've mentioned have no parts unavailable on the open market, and exact duplicates of these servers down to the casework (if not the logos) can be put together on a DIY basis for a fair amount less than the "brand name" servers sell for. There really isn't a fundamental difference in kind between these servers and general purpose computers. They simply have carefully selected components, are often headless, and often have custom tweaked OSs (though nothing anyone conversant with Windows or Linus couldn't do for him- or herself with a little background knowledge).

[firedog]

As I'm sure you realize, the servers you've mentioned have no parts unavailable on the open market, and exact duplicates of these servers down to the casework (if not the logos) can be put together on a DIY basis for a fair amount less than the "brand name" servers sell for.

 

Not strictly true. The Baetis has some proprietary parts, the Antipodes has proprietary software/tuning. I don't think either would be as easy as you claim to perfectly copy, at least for most people. Certainly the knowledge that the Antipodes people seem to have acquired is not something any DIYer could easily duplicate. Just the amount of time invested to develop the knowledge is not inconsiderable.

 

There really isn't a fundamental difference in kind between these servers and general purpose computers. They simply have carefully selected components, are often headless, and often have custom tweaked OSs (though nothing anyone conversant with Windows or Linus couldn't do for him- or herself with a little background knowledge).

 

Well, I guess it depends how you look at it. If someone spends a lot of time testing various parts and matching them to get the best sound, I consider that different in kind from an off the shelf computer and also different from what most DIYers do. I certainly don't have the time, knowledge, or available funds to buy 10-20 motherboards and compare them, for example. And I have even less time and ability to do that with multiple types of parts. I do have the ability to put together a CAPS and tweak the OS. To me that isn't the same thing.

 

I guess in theory you could take an Antipodes server, open it, and copy all the parts. But from what I understand, you still wouldn't get the same result as the setup is proprietary. Users even report improved sound after receiving the unit and having Antipodes remotely "tune" it to their specific system.

 

I don't own either, but as I mentioned, multiple sources indicate that some of the Antipodes servers sound noticeably better than any previous server the user/reviewer has heard, including heavily tweaked DIY models that you seem to be saying are "the same thing".

 

This seems to belie your claim in practice, even though in some theoretical sense you could be right. I just don't think in reality you could make something just as good. Is there some DIYer somewhere who could do it? I guess I'd have to say yes, but that doesn't make it a generally applicable claim for DIYers, which is the claim you seem to be making.

 

And again, whether the price of some of these servers is justified is a different question. But certainly the time involved in developing them and the service time given to buyers is not insignificant. So just adding up the parts cost doesn't seem to be a strictly fair comparison.

 

Jud, let's give a different example: is there anything "fundamentally different" between the USB Regen and any other good quality USB hub? Using your criteria above, the answer is no. The parts (or extremely similar ones), are freely available, and "anyone" could seemingly put one together with some effort.

 

In fact in the thread over at hydrogen audio where they slammed the Regen they claimed exactly that: that it had $20 dollars worth of parts that anyone could put together and shouldn't be sold for more than about $45. Other than the snarky tone over at hydrogen audio, it isn't a very different argument than the one you just made about servers.

 

(Note: They also claimed the Regen is "snakeoil audio" and a rip-off, as there isn't any way it could improve SQ of a USB audio system. But we'll leave that for another day.)

[Daudio]

I I use some in my Machine Learning code. NVIDIA has cool libraries for their GPUs (including for ML and Deep Learning).

 

What Machine Learning code ? Is that part of your day job, school, or another hobby ?

[Audio_ELF]

[The Sonore Signature Rendu] looks like a very nice renderer. And I would be able to plug it right into the HDMI port on the Mirus.

I may have misunderstood what you were saying ... but isn;t the HDMI port on the Mirus a video output to allow easier browsing of the SD card.

 

The i2s output on the Rendu is not actually HDMI - just uses the HDMI cabling.

[YashN]

Yes it will likely be better, but will still use a USB interface.

 

Since your own definition of what the 'ultimate' is was purely based on sound, don't pre-optimise by shunning USB. Who knows, it might already beat your preferred system SQ-wise (as it might not as well).

[YashN]

Only problem is my system is going to be 4 way fully active. On a 2 channel setup that will require 8 channels of DSP, Filtering etc up to DSD 256.

 

That's similar to my own ultimate setup (but I have a few additional features), it certainly requires a lot of channels, both for the amplification and for the DAC. An FPGA could be in the build as well.

 

So in the end I need to determine what's better, a super computer handling the DSP/Filters/modulation, or multiple FPGA's with a lightweight computer.

 

Well, I often can be seen mentioning that I believe Miska is years ahead of everyone in this respect (It isn't a USB-focused solution too).

 

Superbad and John may bring something very interesting soon as well.

[Paul R]

Paul, the problem with your position is that it is very absolute and seems to be based on a preconception, and not familiarity with some of the better "servers" available.

 

There are multiple, consistent reports that servers from companies like Aurender, Antipodes, Baetis, etc provide audibly superior performance over a CAPS or MacMini, not to mention an off the shelf $350 unit. I doubt they are all wrong. Some of those devices come with personalized service to best match the server to your setup remotely. I don't think Best Buy offers that with their $350 models.

 

Whether those servers are worth the cost is a different question. Saying they are overpriced is not the same as saying they don't sound better.

 

But here we reach into the eternal issue between subjective and objective. If a $10K "music appliance" sounds better to you than a $700 Mac Mini, and you can afford it, go for it.

 

On the other hand, claiming that it objectively sounds better and is worth the cost is a whole different barrel of apples! That is almost absolutely certain to *not* be true.

 

But where it turns into a marketing scam is when vendors claim it is better because there is no computer. It might be - might be - simpler to operate. Or it might not. But without a doubt, if it deals with digital music, it is going to have a computer in there. (grin)

 

-Paul

[YashN]

It will be 8 channel 24/384 PCM/DSD 256 capable. Along with that it will have onboard DSP capabilities for active xovers, room correction etc.

 

Not a good design for me...

[Paul R]

General purpose computers are never going to work as good as purpose built ones will for audio. They are fine if used as servers, but the ultimate system is a server/renderer setup. In this case the server can be a computer, or a NAS.

 

Kool Aid.

 

Almost every one of the "purpose built" servers on the market are general purpose computers, dressed up to look nice. You can certainly say they sound better to you, but claiming they are objectively better and sound better and so on - that is very shaky ground indeed. It is also why the "objectivist" guys around here sometimes feel themselves alienated and become the target of intense criticism.

 

Most of those folks can clearly see the point I just made, and the criticism drives them into a bit of tunnel blindness.

 

-Paul

[YashN]

I'm not sure of the meaning of efficient here... Given an algo, the only requirement is that the processing power is enough to execute it with the required speed (ie not maxing out the processing power).

 

There are subtleties like intermittent high current draws which can introduce noise but I'm not sure why this would be across the board better on FPGA vs CPU. That would boil down more to power rail layout than the other considerations.

 

You're right in both paragraphs, IMO, and actually pursuing the fastest algo in some areas of the digital playback chain is a red herring. While it does makes sense in the client-server mode if you're using advanced filters and modulators and more calculations like with HQ Player as these require large computing power, I have come to the conclusion that the 'best algorithm' for SQ may not be the 'best algorithm' in the usual sense of the terms.

[YashN]

If we had some measure or guidelines to go by, I would agree with you. But most modern computers, even the $350 models from Best Buy, are very good indeed. Far better than their counterparts were ten, or even five years ago. Quiet, both environmentally and electrically, powerful, usually easily upgraded, and for the most part, very very reliable. It was a shock for me to realize just how good they really are!

 

Still not good enough for me, if you're doing a direct connection to a DAC.

 

That's why I'd prefer a custom audiophile motherboard, with the least circuitry possible to use as an NAA in client-server mode.

 

EMC implications are huge for SQ.

[YashN]

Jud, let's give a different example: is there anything "fundamentally different" between the USB Regen and any other good quality USB hub? Using your criteria above, the answer is no. The parts (or extremely similar ones), are freely available, and "anyone" could seemingly put one together with some effort.

 

In fact in the thread over at hydrogen audio where they slammed the Regen they claimed exactly that: that it had $20 dollars worth of parts that anyone could put together and shouldn't be sold for more than about $45. Other than the snarky tone over at hydrogen audio, it isn't a very different argument than the one you just made about servers.

 

This just shows how limited the knowledge is over there, so if you want to achieve great SQ, don't hang around there.

 

The Regen is much more than just the material parts - a lot of thought, experimentation and optimisation at low-levels went into it by John as well as critical listening from Superbad.

[Jud]

Have to smile, because the last couple of times I've disagreed with you, including this one, you've wound up persuading me back to your point of view again.

 

Not strictly true. The Baetis has some proprietary parts, the Antipodes has proprietary software/tuning. I don't think either would be as easy as you claim to perfectly copy, at least for most people. Certainly the knowledge that the Antipodes people seem to have acquired is not something any DIYer could easily duplicate. Just the amount of time invested to develop the knowledge is not inconsiderable.

 

I would be interested for curiosity's sake to learn what parts in the Baetis and what software in the Antipodes are proprietary.

 

I agree it's going to be well nigh impossible to perfectly duplicate these servers. I do think, however, that it is possible to get very close. (Granted, small differences can loom large for folks as concerned with subtleties of sound as audiophiles.) I also suppose a fair bit of this seems pretty easy to me since I've been building my own computers and tweaking various OSs just for fun for many years now.

 

Well, I guess it depends how you look at it. If someone spends a lot of time testing various parts and matching them to get the best sound, I consider that different in kind from an off the shelf computer and also different from what most DIYers do. I certainly don't have the time, knowledge, or available funds to buy 10-20 motherboards and compare them, for example. And I have even less time and ability to do that with multiple types of parts. I do have the ability to put together a CAPS and tweak the OS. To me that isn't the same thing.

 

Part of the fun for me of doing my own computer builds is engaging in intensive research that I suppose you could characterize as trying to learn everything I can from people who have "spent a lot of time testing various parts and matching them to get the best" whatever. That's why I'd be reasonably confident of being able to come up with a very, very good music server if that were my goal. You're right, though that (1) it still almost certainly wouldn't exactly match the performance of the customized servers you've mentioned; and (2) as soon as we got past ordinarily available parts to heavy customization of hardware, that would leave me behind: I wouldn't know how to turn a regular USB card into a Paul Pang or SoTM piece, though I suppose I might have done enough research to go ahead and order either of the latter.

 

This seems to belie your claim in practice, even though in some theoretical sense you could be right. I just don't think in reality you could make something just as good. Is there some DIYer somewhere who could do it? I guess I'd have to say yes, but that doesn't make it a generally applicable claim for DIYers, which is the claim you seem to be making.

 

Generally for DIYers, no. I don't think, though, that there is a vast gulf between the best of the non-pro DIYers and the folks building servers for sale. (I imagine more than a few of the latter started out as the former.)

 

And again, whether the price of some of these servers is justified is a different question. But certainly the time involved in developing them and the service time given to buyers is not insignificant. So just adding up the parts cost doesn't seem to be a strictly fair comparison.

 

Completely agreed, I wasn't going there (trying to say people get too much money for these pieces). I was only saying if you have some pretty good DIY ability, the hardware and knowledge are available to get you a good part of the way to a $5000 server for less money.

 

Jud, let's give a different example: is there anything "fundamentally different" between the USB Regen and any other good quality USB hub? Using your criteria above, the answer is no. The parts (or extremely similar ones), are freely available, and "anyone" could seemingly put one together with some effort.

 

In fact in the thread over at hydrogen audio where they slammed the Regen they claimed exactly that: that it had $20 dollars worth of parts that anyone could put together and shouldn't be sold for more than about $45. Other than the snarky tone over at hydrogen audio, it isn't a very different argument than the one you just made about servers.

 

(Note: They also claimed the Regen is "snakeoil audio" and a rip-off, as there isn't any way it could improve SQ of a USB audio system. But we'll leave that for another day.)

 

I do think the Regen is to some extent a different story. I would think it would be considerably easier for your ordinary DIY person to get most of the way to one of these servers without doing anything proprietary, than it would for him or her to get hold of a regular USB hub and turn it into a Regen.

[Blizzard]

I may have misunderstood what you were saying ... but isn;t the HDMI port on the Mirus a video output to allow easier browsing of the SD card.

 

The i2s output on the Rendu is not actually HDMI - just uses the HDMI cabling.

 

Your right the HDMI port is a video output when you don't have the FPGA custom programmed to turn it into a I2S LVDS input.

 

I know what the Rendu HDMI port is for, I2S over LVDS.