Sonore μRendu

[slingshot]

That's what I thought. Thank you.

[rodrigaj]

Generally speaking, when one uses an Ethernet Renderer like the Sonore Rendu, what is typically considered the playback software is the software which runs on the Renderer, and the software running on other components on the network have no influence on sound quality. This is actually one of the big benefits of using an Ethernet Renderer as opposed to using a computer/server via USB for playback: there is no need for software tweaking, special add on programs, or special computer tweaks. The software running on the Renderer itself is the playback software, and is all that matters.

A really good Renderer, like the Sonore Signature Rendu runs an operating system and playback software specifically designed only to play audio with the best possible sound quality, so no software tweaks are necessary for best possible sound quality.

 

I bought a Sonore Rendu (not signature) about a year ago. The importance of what barrows says cannot be overstated if you just want an outstanding playback system with minimal fuss and bother. Combined with a good offline format converter such as Yuri's AuI and you can have outstanding DSD playback of all your files.

[nikander]

Generally speaking, when one uses an Ethernet Renderer like the Sonore Rendu, what is typically considered the playback software is the software which runs on the Renderer, and the software running on other components on the network have no influence on sound quality. This is actually one of the big benefits of using an Ethernet Renderer as opposed to using a computer/server via USB for playback: there is no need for software tweaking, special add on programs, or special computer tweaks. The software running on the Renderer itself is the playback software, and is all that matters.

A really good Renderer, like the Sonore Signature Rendu runs an operating system and playback software specifically designed only to play audio with the best possible sound quality, so no software tweaks are necessary for best possible sound quality.

 

very interesting and promising comment - thank you.

I have recently tested the sMs-100 Mini Server powered by the SotM battery unit (attached to a SotM DX USB HD USB to SPDIF converter (powered by linear PSU) and a Reclocker to a DAC/Preamp) and tested it against a "tweaked" Mac Book.

I personally prefered the sound of the MBP (less harsh, more air).

Could this have been influenced by the Hardware of the sMs-100 Mini Server?

 

Christian

[firedog]

very interesting and promising comment - thank you.

I have recently tested the sMs-100 Mini Server powered by the SotM battery unit (attached to a SotM DX USB HD USB to SPDIF converter (powered by linear PSU) and a Reclocker to a DAC/Preamp) and tested it against a "tweaked" Mac Book.

I personally prefered the sound of the MBP (less harsh, more air).

Could this have been influenced by the Hardware of the sMs-100 Mini Server?

 

Christian

 

"YMMV"

 

I recently tested:

 

a USB CAPS Pipeline via USB (tweaked with Regen and Wyrd) to a DAC;

 

vs an SMS-Mini Server receiving data from same server over ethernet, and output via USB (also with Regen and Wyrd) t same DAC; sound from the SMS-100 was much better in every parameter.

[nikander]

@ firedog

 

I have seen in your signature that you use a SOtM Lan Filter - where are you using it?

[MikeJazz]

very interesting and promising comment - thank you.

I have recently tested the sMs-100 Mini Server powered by the SotM battery unit (attached to a SotM DX USB HD USB to SPDIF converter (powered by linear PSU) and a Reclocker to a DAC/Preamp) and tested it against a "tweaked" Mac Book.

I personally prefered the sound of the MBP (less harsh, more air).

Could this have been influenced by the Hardware of the sMs-100 Mini Server?

 

Christian

 

What reclocker did you use, if I may ask?

[nikander]

Mutec MC 3+

[davide256]

very interesting and promising comment - thank you.

I have recently tested the sMs-100 Mini Server powered by the SotM battery unit (attached to a SotM DX USB HD USB to SPDIF converter (powered by linear PSU) and a Reclocker to a DAC/Preamp) and tested it against a "tweaked" Mac Book.

I personally prefered the sound of the MBP (less harsh, more air).

Could this have been influenced by the Hardware of the sMs-100 Mini Server?

 

Christian

 

and you served files how to the SMS-100? Suspect this is where you constrained the quality of your results.

[nikander]

@ Dave

 

thanks for your question - I was wondering too if the way the files were served might have influenced the sound:

 

I don`t have Ethernet plugs in my house - just a WLAN router next door.

So I bought a Devolo Powerline 500 device (with two Ethernet plugs) - the Mac Book Pro and the sMs-100 attached to it.

 

The MBP is run with CAD Script (SSD), the music files were transfered to a ram disk (a second hard disk was unmounted) and the files were transfered via HQ Player and NAA in the Mini Server (NAA this was the main reason why I decided to test the sMs-100 because I love the HQ Player).

[firedog]

@ firedog

 

I have seen in your signature that you use a SOtM Lan Filter - where are you using it?

 

Between my router and my SMS-100

[nikander]

@ Firedog

 

so this might have caused an advantage for the sMs-100 (? don`t know)

 

Anyways - is it really true that in case of a sMs-100 or uRendu jitter issues of the "serving PC" (may it be a true NAS Server or a Mac Book) can be ruled out by principle?

 

The hardware inside the "renderer" (sMs-100, uRendu ...) m u s t be a crucial issue - otherwise there wouldn`t be differently priced products (Sonore Signature Rendu, Sonic Orbiter, sMs-100 ...). It can`t be just reduced to software.

 

regards,

 

Christian

[barrows]

very interesting and promising comment - thank you.

I have recently tested the sMs-100 Mini Server powered by the SotM battery unit (attached to a SotM DX USB HD USB to SPDIF converter (powered by linear PSU) and a Reclocker to a DAC/Preamp) and tested it against a "tweaked" Mac Book.

I personally prefered the sound of the MBP (less harsh, more air).

Could this have been influenced by the Hardware of the sMs-100 Mini Server?

 

 

 

Christian

 

So many variables here it is very hard to say. One thing I can say: if you are sure your DAC is best by SPDIF (the only reason to use the separate USB-SPDIF converter) your best playback option for top performance would be a Sonore Signature Rendu, and take its SPDIF output direct to your DAC. The SPDIF output from the Signature Rendu is world class.

[barrows]

@ Firedog

 

so this might have caused an advantage for the sMs-100 (? don`t know)

 

Anyways - is it really true that in case of a sMs-100 or uRendu jitter issues of the "serving PC" (may it be a true NAS Server or a Mac Book) can be ruled out by principle?

 

The hardware inside the "renderer" (sMs-100, uRendu ...) m u s t be a crucial issue - otherwise there wouldn`t be differently priced products (Sonore Signature Rendu, Sonic Orbiter, sMs-100 ...). It can`t be just reduced to software.

 

regards,

 

Christian

 

Yup, the hardware is critical. The Signature Rendu is a premium, no compromise product. It has every detail addressed, with the best possible power supply, two separate independent layers of isolation (first Ethernet is isolated from the source, second, the onboard processing is isolated from the clocks and the output), and proprietary, exceptional driving circuits for both SPDIF and I2S outputs. Even these output driving circuits are critical, to get a really good, clean, waveform representing the digital signal (remember that the digital signal on SPDIF and I2S is actually represented by an analog waveform).

[nikander]

Yup, the hardware is critical. The Signature Rendu is a premium, no compromise product. It has every detail addressed, with the best possible power supply, two separate independent layers of isolation (first Ethernet is isolated from the source, second, the onboard processing is isolated from the clocks and the output), and proprietary, exceptional driving circuits for both SPDIF and I2S outputs. Even these output driving circuits are critical, to get a really good, clean, waveform representing the digital signal (remember that the digital signal on SPDIF and I2S is actually represented by an analog waveform).

 

obviously "gold standard" - but unfortunately without NAA.

Let' s hope the uRendu keeps up to it as far as possible- very eager to listen to it.

 

Regards,

 

Christian

[jtwrace]

Yup, the hardware is critical. The Signature Rendu is a premium, no compromise product. It has every detail addressed, with the best possible power supply, two separate independent layers of isolation (first Ethernet is isolated from the source, second, the onboard processing is isolated from the clocks and the output), and proprietary, exceptional driving circuits for both SPDIF and I2S outputs. Even these output driving circuits are critical, to get a really good, clean, waveform representing the digital signal (remember that the digital signal on SPDIF and I2S is actually represented by an analog waveform).

 

That means there will never be an upgrade for it. Bold post.

[davide256]

@ Dave

 

thanks for your question - I was wondering too if the way the files were served might have influenced the sound:

 

I don`t have Ethernet plugs in my house - just a WLAN router next door.

So I bought a Devolo Powerline 500 device (with two Ethernet plugs) - the Mac Book Pro and the sMs-100 attached to it.

 

The MBP is run with CAD Script (SSD), the music files were transfered to a ram disk (a second hard disk was unmounted) and the files were transfered via HQ Player and NAA in the Mini Server (NAA this was the main reason why I decided to test the sMs-100 because I love the HQ Player).

 

I'd suggest you give the iTunes server function a whirl, pulling music from your Macbook. NAA is off the beaten path.

[nikander]

I'd suggest you give the iTunes server function a whirl, pulling music from your Macbook. NAA is off the beaten path.

 

I need HQ Player for my room correction filters (Acourate), so I think iTunes Server would not help,

 

Regards,

Christian

[firedog]

@ Firedog

 

so this might have caused an advantage for the sMs-100 (? don`t know)

 

Anyways - is it really true that in case of a sMs-100 or uRendu jitter issues of the "serving PC" (may it be a true NAS Server or a Mac Book) can be ruled out by principle?

 

The hardware inside the "renderer" (sMs-100, uRendu ...) m u s t be a crucial issue - otherwise there wouldn`t be differently priced products (Sonore Signature Rendu, Sonic Orbiter, sMs-100 ...). It can`t be just reduced to software.

 

regards,

 

Christian

 

I think the addition of the LAN filter made a small improvement. I don't have any practical way to directly compare the setup with and without, so you're left with my impression. The LAN filter is supposed to eliminate noise conducted on the ethernet cabling - for example noise from router and its SMPS.

Renderers like the SMS-100 are supposed to be quieter than a direct USB connection to a PC/Server. I 'd assume the PS of and HW of the renderer make a big difference, and that's why I'm expecting the uRendu to sound better than the SMS-100. Keep in mind that I'm powering my SMS-100 from a quality outboard PS, and the server from a standard laptop type external supply.

 

From what I hear, that's really the big difference maker. The SMS-100 on it's own with the included SMPS only added a little to the quality of the SQ; but when I power it from the Sonore Sig PS, SQ is much better. That scenario is also superior to Powering the CAPS Pipeine from the Sonore PS and the SMS-100 from the wall SMPS; and also superior to Powering the Pipeline from the Sonore Sig PS and connecting Via USB to my DAC (with Regen, LAN Filter, etc.) without the SMS-100 at all.

 

All of that leads me to the conclusion that the Server>Render (with good PS) accomplishes both some isolation of the playback from the noise made by the server and also that the SMS-100 is a quality quiet playback device on it's own. The uRender has power and other specialized audio HW built in, which the SMS-100 doesn't (it's based on a stock board, AFAIK). If I end up buying the uRenderer, I will definitely also make sure it has a quality PS.

[nikander]

...

 

From what I hear, that's really the big difference maker. The SMS-100 on it's own with the included SMPS only added a little to the quality of the SQ; but when I power it from the Sonore Sig PS, SQ is much better. That scenario is also superior to Powering the CAPS Pipeine from the Sonore PS and the SMS-100 from the wall SMPS; and also superior to Powering the Pipeline from the Sonore Sig PS and connecting Via USB to my DAC (with Regen, LAN Filter, etc.) without the SMS-100 at all.

 

All of that leads me to the conclusion that the Server>Render (with good PS) accomplishes both some isolation of the playback from the noise made by the server and also that the SMS-100 is a quality quiet playback device on it's own. The uRender has power and other specialized audio HW built in, which the SMS-100 doesn't (it's based on a stock board, AFAIK). If I end up buying the uRenderer, I will definitely also make sure it has a quality PS.

 

thanks a lot for your valuable information!

The battery supply unit by SotM might not have been sufficient (it has been stated elsewhere here that a very good linear PSU is superior to a battery supply).

The vital question for me is: shall I buy a highly optimized High End PC with minimized jitter issues or keep a Mac Book Pro and buy a highly optimized renderer a la uRendu - if the renderer is still prone to jitter issues of the Mac Book/Server it doesn`t seem to be worthwile for me.

So my question: how does your setup sound if you attach the sMs-100 to a plain Laptop/PC?

 

Thanks a lot in advance and best wishes,

 

Christian

[firedog]

So my question: how does your setup sound if you attach the sMs-100 to a plain Laptop/PC?

 

PM sent as this is getting very off topic.

[hifi_swlon]

Not Jesus, but I have some info. The µRendu was only leaked to the public, no formal announcement has been made, and that is the reason for this thread. ....

 

Huh, I came across this device on what I assume is the developers website (sonore)? I'm also really interested in what sort of release date is expected, even if it's something loose like 'late 2015' or 'sometime 2016'.

 

I'm in the market for a new streamer/renderer and was looking at something like an Aurender, but lots of its features would be superfluous to my needs as I really want to use something with Roon - so would be great to know whether to hold out for this or move on with something else if its a long way off.

[firedog]

Huh, I came across this device on what I assume is the developers website (sonore)? I'm also really interested in what sort of release date is expected, even if it's something loose like 'late 2015' or 'sometime 2016'.

 

I'm in the market for a new streamer/renderer and was looking at something like an Aurender, but lots of its features would be superfluous to my needs as I really want to use something with Roon - so would be great to know whether to hold out for this or move on with something else if its a long way off.

 

the page on the web site wasn't meant to be public, but once it was revealed Sonore decided to let it be seen.

The device hasn't been finalized yet, but we've been lead to believe the commercial version will be relatively soon. I think less than a year would be a safe bet. If anyone knows differently, please correct me.

 

If you can wait, this device might definitely be worth waiting for. Even with a good PS, it will probably be cheaper than an Aurender, And as it is supposed to include Roon Speakers, it will work well for you. I'm going to wait to hear the initial reactions to it - if it is as good as it sounds like it might be, then I'll probably get one.

[nikander]

... if it is as good as it sounds like it might be, then I'll probably get one.

 

same with me!

[hifi_swlon]

the page on the web site wasn't meant to be public, but once it was revealed Sonore decided to let it be seen.

The device hasn't been finalized yet, but we've been lead to believe the commercial version will be relatively soon. I think less than a year would be a safe bet. If anyone knows differently, please correct me.

 

If you can wait, this device might definitely be worth waiting for. Even with a good PS, it will probably be cheaper than an Aurender, And as it is supposed to include Roon Speakers, it will work well for you. I'm going to wait to hear the initial reactions to it - if it is as good as it sounds like it might be, then I'll probably get one.

 

Thanks for the info. Sounds like it might be a bit too far off for me, although I suppose less than a year could also mean a few months.... Will watch this space. Maybe roon speakers will be released for other devices like the pi to tide me over in the meantime.

[barrows]

That means there will never be an upgrade for it. Bold post.

 

Hey Jason, pretty much true, but, the constant development of new parts by parts manufacturers always allows for the possibility of an upgrade path. for example, perhaps new oscillator modules become available with less phase noise in the appropriate frequencies: a new version could include those. The other possibility is software upgrades, but if those come available Sonore will generally offer them for no additional charge.

For sure, the SSR is built to the highest standard we could at the time.