Sonore microRendu

[t_ram]

I think he's saying that 65% of the time its 35% better...or did I just have an Anchor Man moment

[Confused]

10 minutes ago, t_ram said:

I think he's saying that 65% of the time its 35% better...or did I just have an Anchor Man moment

 

I'm confused.....

[lwr]

In my system the modified sMS-200 powered by the LPS-1 has been a completely satisfying device for hundreds of hours of listening, and clearly preferable to the MicroRendu 1.3 powered by the LPS-1.  It provides a very natural, intimate, and lifelike sound that leaves the MicroRendu 1.3 sounding noticeably thin and clinical in comparison.

 

Before the modification of the sMS-200 by upgrading the 4 electrolytic capacitors with much higher capacitance Blackgates, the differences were less noticeable, but still there.  But when the MicroRendu 1.4 powered by the LPS-1 was put in place of the SMS-200, the sq improvement was immediately obvious and there is no going back for me.  I could have quite happily lived with and been completely satisfied with the sq of the modified SMS-200 forever, until I heard the MicroRendu 1.4.

 

I discovered my music library all over again when I got the MicroRendu 1.3, then again with the modified SMS-200, then again with the ISO Regen, and then again with the MicroRendu 1.4.  If it never gets any better than it is now, that's fine with me.  I can listen for hours and hours at a time with great enjoyment and zero listener fatigue.  Back in the day, whenever one aspect of the sq would be improved, it would be at the expense of incurring some unwanted artifact or the other - such as increases in detail being accompanied by some loss of the naturalness of the sound.  It's great that that those days are behind us.

[barrows]

3 minutes ago, lwr said:

In my system the modified sMS-200 powered by the LPS-1 has been a completely satisfying device for hundreds of hours of listening, and clearly preferable to the MicroRendu 1.3 powered by the LPS-1.  It provides a very natural, intimate, and lifelike sound that leaves the MicroRendu 1.3 sounding noticeably thin and clinical in comparison.

 

Before the modification of the sMS-200 by upgrading the 4 electrolytic capacitors with much higher capacitance Blackgates, the differences were less noticeable, but still there.  But when the MicroRendu 1.4 powered by the LPS-1 was put in place of the SMS-200, the sq improvement was immediately obvious and there is no going back for me.  I could have quite happily lived with and been completely satisfied with the sq of the modified SMS-200 forever, until I heard the MicroRendu 1.4.

 

I discovered my music library all over again when I got the MicroRendu 1.3, then again with the modified SMS-200, then again with the ISO Regen, and then again with the MicroRendu 1.4.  If it never gets any better than it is now, that's fine with me.  I can listen for hours and hours at a time with great enjoyment and zero listener fatigue.  Back in the day, whenever one aspect of the sq would be improved, it would be at the expense of incurring some unwanted artifact or the other - such as increases in detail being accompanied by some loss of the naturalness of the sound.  It's great that that those days are behind us.

Ahh, but it does get better... hurray!

[lwr]

32 minutes ago, sahmen said:

I think he wants to say that the 1.4 is much better, if I am understanding this part correctly :

 

"That is to say that the modified SMS-200 powered by the LPS-1 is consistent with, but much less than the sq of the MicroRendu 1.4 powered by LPS-1"

 

However, I also found the numbered/quantified comparisons he used to be harder to follow.

Sorry for the confusion.  What I was trying to say is that, in my system, the modified SMS-200 powered by the LPS-1 gets you about 35% of the sound quality improvement that you get when you use the MicroRendu 1.4 powered by the LPS-1.  The idea was to propose a continuum with the MicroRendu 1.3 at 0% improvement, the modified SMS-200 at 35% improvement, and the MicroRendu at 100% 

[sahmen]

9 minutes ago, lwr said:

Sorry for the confusion.  What I was trying to say is that, in my system, the modified SMS-200 powered by the LPS-1 gets you about 35% of the sound quality improvement that you get when you use the MicroRendu 1.4 powered by the LPS-1.  The idea was to propose a continuum with the MicroRendu 1.3 at 0% improvement, the modified SMS-200 at 35% improvement, and the MicroRendu at 100% 

No problem...Misunderstanding resolved 

[R1200CL]

12 minutes ago, lwr said:

The idea was to propose a continuum with the MicroRendu 1.3 at 0% improvement, the modified SMS-200 at 35% improvement, and the MicroRendu at 100% 

 

WOW.  I can't wait to get mine. 

 I hope Jesus hasn't lost my MicroRendu. Tracking stops without update 15th. 

 

So so my prediction that the MicroRendu 1.4 is a 96 % UltraRendu may not be so bad after all ???

[Superdad]

2 hours ago, lwr said:

...upgrading the MicroRendu to 1.4 was more like the improvement of upgrading from a amber Regen powered by LPS-1 to a ISO Regen powered by LPS-1.

 

Well that's a helpful comparison since so many people know what a big upgrade the ISO REGEN is over the original USB REGEN.

[barrows]

3 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

 

WOW.  I can't wait to get mine. 

 I hope Jesus hasn't lost my MicroRendu. Tracking stops without update 15th. 

 

So so my prediction that the MicroRendu 1.4 is a 96 % UltraRendu may not be so bad after all ???

Hmmm.  Lots of improvement for Ultra over micro 1.4.

[R1200CL]

16 minutes ago, barrows said:

Hmmm.  Lots of improvement for Ultra over micro 1.4.

 

Funny. Coming from two that hasn't heard ? (Me and you)

 

Anyway we will have good reading her at CA next weeks all of us.

Sure ther will be as many opinions as systems. 

 

And of of cause the UltraRendu should win in any system. It's just about how much. (vs money spent). 

 

On the other hand there may be a limited people able to complete 1.4 vs the UltraRendu. But I could be wrong. 

[kennyb123]

3 hours ago, lwr said:

In my system, I found that, as Kennyb123 said in his post above, the "focus and timing precision" of the upper midrange and highs came to fruition after a number of hours of continuous burn-in with "streaming music through the microRendu."  I too am am "hearing some spectacular things now,  (and) the highs ... have joined the party and I'm hearing some impressive clarity in the upper frequencies."

  

 

Thanks for the confirming that you heard the same improvements as you more time was put on it.  I think Barrows is correct above that "crystal based oscillators take some time to stabilize".  I find myself sensitive what I term "timing precision"  Things were really rocking in that area just before I sent the microRendu of to be updated.  By the time I went to bed last night, a good measure of that had come back.  

 

It's interesting that we are both also using ISO REGENs.  At some point I intend to pull it out and see what happens.  The ISO REGEN made important improvements with the original microRendu.  I'm curious as to how much difference it will make now that I have the 1.4 update.

[barrows]

1 hour ago, R1200CL said:

 

Funny. Coming from two that hasn't heard ? (Me and you)

 

Anyway we will have good reading her at CA next weeks all of us.

Sure ther will be as many opinions as systems. 

 

And of of cause the UltraRendu should win in any system. It's just about how much. (vs money spent). 

 

On the other hand there may be a limited people able to complete 1.4 vs the UltraRendu. But I could be wrong. 

Not exactly.  I have directly compared the Ultra rendu board, powered by the Signature Power Supply, with the microRendu v 1.4, it is no contest.  I just did not have the Ultra Rendu board in its case, so technically I have never had an actual Ultra rendu in my system, just the board powered buy the SPS...  

[soares]

it will arrive next Monday!

Great!!!

Thank you Jesus

 

[lwr]

3 hours ago, barrows said:

Not exactly.  I have directly compared the Ultra rendu board, powered by the Signature Power Supply, with the microRendu v 1.4, it is no contest.  I just did not have the Ultra Rendu board in its case, so technically I have never had an actual Ultra rendu in my system, just the board powered buy the SPS...  

 The upgrade from 1.3 to 1.4 is quite excellent and I'll have many hours of listening enjoyment on it before I am inclined to make the investment in the ultimate MicroRendu.  The cost of the upgrade ifrom 1.3 to 1.4 is minimal and i really appreciate the opportunity to so significantly improve an existing piece of equipment.

[mirekti]

Could someone post a link or explain where I could see the benefits to uR compared to galvanically isolated DAC?

I am not quite sure I understand all of this. Not trying to stir anything, but I spent some time reading different topics and came to conclusion if data was delivered to DAC and the DAC was an asynch DAC, it would reorder the bits anyway. Regarding the noise, I read it comes from 5V, but if the DAC is galvanically isolated this is mitigated. 

 

Is this a product for DACs which don't have 5V galvanically isolated from data link and have bad/cheap reclocking so using uR will benefit in no noise sent and it would make it easier for bad/cheap reclocking in the DAC to work better? 

[R1200CL]

6 minutes ago, mirekti said:

Could someone post a link or explain where I could see the benefits to uR compared to galvanically isolated DAC?

 

Probably don't matter, but what DAC do you have, and how is it powered today ?

[mirekti]

1 minute ago, R1200CL said:

 

Probably don't matter, but what DAC do you have, and how is it powered today ?

 

I am using a DAC module from Vinnie Rossi's LIO, and awaiting DAC 2.0 module.

[barrows]

6 minutes ago, mirekti said:

Could someone post a link or explain where I could see the benefits to uR compared to galvanically isolated DAC?

I am not quite sure I understand all of this. Not trying to stir anything, but I spent some time reading different topics and came to conclusion if data was delivered to DAC and the DAC was an asynch DAC, it would reorder the bits anyway. Regarding the noise, I read it comes from 5V, but if the DAC is galvanically isolated this is mitigated. 

 

Is this a product for DACs which don't have 5V galvanically isolated from data link and have bad/cheap reclocking so using uR will benefit in no noise sent and it would make it easier for bad/cheap reclocking in the DAC to work better? 

In my experience, the microRendu, the Ultra Rendu, and the Signature Rendu SE all give great benefits even when paired with a DAC which offers an isolated USB interface.  Indeed, I prefer a DAC to have a properly isolated USB interface, and mine does, still a better USB feed offers improved sonics, and in a big way.

Perhaps this down to the fact that no isolation is perfect, perhaps it is related to the factors of USB packet noise.  If you want to learn more about this, i would suggest searching for John Swenson's posts on the USB interface in the various Uptone Audio threads on their regen products.  John seems to understand more about the USB interface than anyone else.

BTW, these "issues" are not limited to USB, every interface has its own technical difficulties to overcome, for example, building a decent SPDIF transmitter or receiver circuit is enormously challenging, and everyone with experience knows how big a difference a good SPDIF cable can make for that interface.

 

To to it off, even though they should have isolated interfaces, many, even very expensive DACs do not!  I find that somewhat annoying myself.

[R1200CL]

3 minutes ago, mirekti said:

I am using a DAC module from Vinnie Rossi's LIO, and awaiting DAC 2.0 module.

 

WoW. Very interesting. I think your question is about the benefit of ISO Regen with your DAC.  

@Superdad, I think you should answer this one. (Even maybe wrong thread). 

[R1200CL]

6 minutes ago, barrows said:

for example, building a decent SPDIF transmitter or receiver circuit is enormously challenging, and everyone with experience knows how big a difference a good SPDIF cable can make for that interface.

 

Interesting you mention this. Not sure if you specific was tinkering about convert Ethernet or USB into SPDIF.  Which I hope will be next product from Sonore or Uptone. And an audiophile switch as well later 

 

I'm leaning towards the idea of having separate external devices is the way to go at the present time.

 

To purchase a very expensive DAC may not benefit you. I have one, without USB, and with a mrsp $15000, good small items like Singxer SU-1 and the MicroRendu, ISO regen and more, is making an old high quality DAC worth keeping. After all, most of them is very good, they just miss USB or Ethernet. (RAAT)

 

If I got it right, as an example, most DAC's do upsamling and more or less has a computer look alike item inside. 

 

Now you can move this part out to HQPlayer or Roon, and in general save some money, if you're looking for a decent DAC. 

 

This will probably not keep things simple, but you will most likely get the best signal possible for you DAC. 

 

 

[vortecjr]

6 hours ago, lwr said:

Before the modification of the sMS-200 by upgrading the 4 electrolytic capacitors with much higher capacitance Blackgates, the differences were less noticeable, but still there.  But when the MicroRendu 1.4 powered by the LPS-1 was put in place of the SMS-200, the sq improvement was immediately obvious and there is no going back for me.  I could have quite happily lived with and been completely satisfied with the sq of the modified SMS-200 forever, until I heard the MicroRendu 1.4.

Very cool!

[vortecjr]

6 hours ago, lwr said:

Sorry for the confusion.  What I was trying to say is that, in my system, the modified SMS-200 powered by the LPS-1 gets you about 35% of the sound quality improvement that you get when you use the MicroRendu 1.4 powered by the LPS-1.  The idea was to propose a continuum with the MicroRendu 1.3 at 0% improvement, the modified SMS-200 at 35% improvement, and the MicroRendu at 100% 

Wow..that is huge. 

[vortecjr]

1 hour ago, lwr said:

 The upgrade from 1.3 to 1.4 is quite excellent and I'll have many hours of listening enjoyment on it before I am inclined to make the investment in the ultimate MicroRendu.  The cost of the upgrade ifrom 1.3 to 1.4 is minimal and i really appreciate the opportunity to so significantly improve an existing piece of equipment.

We are happy to do it...mission accomplished. 

[vortecjr]

18 minutes ago, R1200CL said:

 

Interesting you mention this. Not sure if you specific was tinkering about convert Ethernet or USB into SPDIF.  Which I hope will be next product from Sonore or Uptone. And an audiophile switch as well later 

 

I'm leaning towards the idea of having separate external devices is the way to go at the present time.

 

To purchase a very expensive DAC may not benefit you. I have one, without USB, and with a mrsp $15000, good small items like Singxer SU-1 and the MicroRendu, ISO regen and more, is making an old high quality DAC worth keeping. After all, most of them is very good, they just miss USB or Ethernet. (RAAT)

 

If I got it right, as an example, most DAC's do upsamling and more or less has a computer look alike item inside. 

 

Now you can move this part out to HQPlayer or Roon, and in general save some money, if you're looking for a decent DAC. 

 

This will probably not keep things simple, but you will most likely get the best signal possible for you DAC. 

 

 

We actually have a lot of customers that use USB to digital converters.

[soupdujour]

Hi all,

 

My ultraRendu arrived this afternoon.  Without the benefit of any burn-in (i.e., right out of the box) and after just a few bars of The Bill Evans Trio playing "Isn't it Romantic" from the DSD-256 version of "At Shelly's Manne-Hole" I knew that my previous audio rig, which I thought already to be at the apex of my own listening experience, climbed to new stratospheric heights.  But first some context.  Prior to adding the ultraRendu to the setup, my configuration included the following in the line-up: Brooklyn DAC (powered by an UpTone JS-2), an ISO REGEN (also powered by the JS-2) feeding into the DAC with a USPCB A>B, a microRendu 1.3 (powered by an UpTone LPS-1), AudioQuest Vodka ethernet for NAS and MacMini connections.  With my McIntosh amplifier driving my BW CM600 speakers in that configuration I could easily find myself listening for hours, feeling immersed by the open and natural sound reproduction of nearly all, but especially jazz, recordings in my library.

 

Then today I swapped out the mR 1.3 for the new ultraRendu.  WOW!  The soundstage not only widened, but the placement of the instruments on it seemed even more natural with the added depth the uR brings.  There's just so much added realism to the sounds of the instruments: the brushwork is textured and detailed, the cymbals naturally decay, and the movement of air with each note of the double bass is palpable.  And, as I said, this is without any burn-in period.  Some folks here commented just how much of an improvement the mR 1.4 is over its predecessor.  I can't compare the uR to mR 1.4, but if you're contemplating the leap from 1.3 to the uR, I can safely say you won't be disappointed.  I cannot wait to hear the incremental improvements after hours of streaming.

 

Happy listening!