Audio Alchemy DDP-1 and Ayre Codex Side by Side

[Johnseye]

I think FMCs with something like an LPS-1 to power the downstream FMC are doing the best job. Some people also like non-active filters but not all that tried them do. Also, ethernet receivers running at 100mbps generate less noise than receivers at 1Gb so use, for example, an MC100CM. There is discussion on CA regarding the regularor chips in an FMC and the noise generated. Some are experimenting with linear regulators on the circuit board. Problem here is the heat generated and I am not sure if it helped much.

 

Another thing I found makes digital sound better is a better preamp.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

 

I get the idea behind stripping noise with fiber. Optical in to the DAC would serve the same purpose but there's a reason why USB is preferred. Not sure what that is.

 

Why would you be using a preamp? The DAC is the preamp. Direct balanced output of the DAC to your amp and on to your speakers.

[d_elm]

I get the idea behind stripping noise with fiber. Optical in to the DAC would serve the same purpose but there's a reason why USB is preferred. Not sure what that is.

 

Why would you be using a preamp? The DAC is the preamp. Direct balanced output of the DAC to your amp and on to your speakers.

 

I think USB is used in many installations because it now supports high data rates and there are many USB sources, although not optimal. I hope the next step adopted will be optical ethernet into the DAC.

 

The Codex can run in preamp mode but I have tried an Ayre KX-5 twenty ( on order ) and the SQ is much better and I can switch inputs.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

[Johnseye]

I think USB is used in many installations because it now supports high data rates and there are many USB sources, although not optimal. I hope the next step adopted will be optical ethernet into the DAC.

The Codex can run in preamp mode but I have tried an Ayre KX-5 twenty ( on order ) and the SQ is much better and I can switch inputs.

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

That's right, it was the bandwidth limitation. One would think DAC manufacturers would be evaluating and measuring the noise introduced to their devices and add a fiber NIC. DACs are boutique gear for the most part, not main stream audio components found at Best Buy. One has to question why the mRendu doesn't have one considering it's main purpose is to filter noise.

 

Back to your original comment though. I stand by my side by side comparison. With my setup, even without an mRendu or fiber, I could hear no discernible noise with either DAC. I still can't with the DDP-1. That's not to say it isn't there, I just can't hear it. All things being equal, except the two DACs, the DDP-1 sounded noticeably better. A richer, warmer sound. More like analog sourced vinyl which I think what we search for in digital music.

 

By the way, I mentioned in my original post I was going to compare it with the Oppo BDP-105D, which I did. The 105 has the same ESS Saber 32 ES9018 DAC as the BDP-95. You couldn't hear a difference with 95, and I couldn't with the 105 because the Codex uses the exact same DAC. I think that demonstrates how much the DAC itself plays a role in the sound and everything else can be like chasing ghost rabbits.

[TubeLover]

I get the idea behind stripping noise with fiber. Optical in to the DAC would serve the same purpose but there's a reason why USB is preferred. Not sure what that is.

Why would you be using a preamp? The DAC is the preamp. Direct balanced output of the DAC to your amp and on to your speakers.

 

The reason you would be using a preamp is to improve overall audio performance. Yes, certain DAC's "can" be connected directly to an amplifier with very good results, but we are talking in the $15-20k arena, not where you are. Only at the highest levels of audio, in terms of price, have I ever heard a direct connected DAC to amp scenario which was superior to one connected to a quality preamp

 

JC

[TubeLover]

My understanding is that the mrendu is nothing but a few filters between an RJ45 input and a USB output.

 

You are terribly misinformed about the MicroRendu and what it is. You should read the review here by Chris (the Computer Audiophile) about the MicroRendu. He said flat out that "With the mR in my system, I'm getting the best sound I've ever heard in my house." He further added, "I don't believe I've had a sonically better source connected to my system at any time." While he did not, obviously, name them, you should be aware that he has had sources in his system costing many thousands of dollars which he reviewed previously!

 

Computer Audiophile - Sonore microRendu Review, Part 2

 

JC

[Johnseye]

You are terribly misinformed about the MicroRendu and what it is. You should read the review here by Chris (the Computer Audiophile) about the MicroRendu. He said flat out that "With the mR in my system, I'm getting the best sound I've ever heard in my house." He further added, "I don't believe I've had a sonically better source connected to my system at any time." While he did not, obviously, name them, you should be aware that he has had sources in his system costing many thousands of dollars which he reviewed previously!

 

Computer Audiophile - Sonore microRendu Review, Part 2

 

JC

 

I've read the review and I still think it's just a bunch of filters between an RJ45 and USB. That said, this thing must clean up noise very well.

 

Please explain how a preamp is going to improve overall audio performance vs a DAC direct to amp. What's it going to do exactly?

[Superdad]

I've read the review and I still think it's just a bunch of filters between an RJ45 and USB. That said, this thing must clean up noise very well.

 

Uh, no. The microRendu is a complete, Linux-running iMX6 computer with linear power circuits and feature sets (certain functions turned off for lowest noise) are all optimized for handling network music streams and outputting USB audio data with high signal integrity (eye pattern) and ideal impedance match.

 

It literally is not possible to create a box that just takes in an Ethernet stream, "filters" it, and outputs a USB stream. There are many protocols involved. It takes a processor and software to do this.

 

And the Linux-based OrbiterOS that runs the microRendu has a host of modes allowing its use as various types of network audio endpoints.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

[Jud]

The problem with uninformed skepticism is the same as the problem with uninformed gullibility - they're both uninformed!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[mansr]

The problem with uninformed skepticism is the same as the problem with uninformed gullibility - they're both uninformed!

 

Scepticism is cheaper though.

[Jud]

Scepticism is cheaper though.

 

What if it causes you to be skeptical of the things that will allow you to accomplish your goals for less money (e.g., "I don't want any of that dodgy open source software on my servers. All Microsoft all the way!")?

 

(Apologies for the OT.)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Johnseye]

Uh, no. The microRendu is a complete, Linux-running iMX6 computer with linear power circuits and feature sets (certain functions turned off for lowest noise) are all optimized for handling network music streams and outputting USB audio data with high signal integrity (eye pattern) and ideal impedance match.

 

It literally is not possible to create a box that just takes in an Ethernet stream, "filters" it, and outputs a USB stream. There are many protocols involved. It takes a processor and software to do this.

 

And the Linux-based OrbiterOS that runs the microRendu has a host of modes allowing its use as various types of network audio endpoints.

 

What you've told me is that it is a filter. Can you run the Rendu Core on it, eliminating the Server? No, you need something much more powerful. That powerful host creates noise when it processes the audio and so this device filters that noise before it gets to the DAC. This may allow the DAC to do a better job because it's not dealing with that noise.

The problem with uninformed skepticism is the same as the problem with uninformed gullibility - they're both uninformed!

I've been begging to be informed. I started another thread which has the same conversation about the mRendu going on, asking to be informed. Please explain or point me to a post that clearly explains what the mRendu actually does, other than filter the noise. One would think that Sonore would get into some detail about this on their website, but all it says is "high quality low noise and ultra low noise regulators", and "fixed frequency low jitter oscillators". It runs Linux and serves as the endpoint for a few music servers. But why do you need it other than to filter the noise?

 

All I hear is that it's a Linux computer and the sound coming from it is sublime. Then again I've also read it makes the music sound like a 1980's Sony CD player. So I decided to buy one and hear for myself, not knowing what it actually does.

 

This thread is really about my opinion when comparing the DDP-1 with the Codex, not the mRendu. Here's that discussion.

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f10-music-servers/microrendu-nuc-jriver-and-roon-31537/#post632627

[Johnseye]

What if it causes you to be skeptical of the things that will allow you to accomplish your goals for less money (e.g., "I don't want any of that dodgy open source software on my servers. All Microsoft all the way!")?

 

(Apologies for the OT.)

I think you've completely misunderstood. I want an open source device. If you read my other post you'll see what I'm getting at. But you use a MacBook and I don't see the mRendu in your chain. Not sure why you posted. Were you trying to help or just saying I should blindly do something?

 

There's nothing wrong with being skeptical of something you're ignorant about, that's natural. I'm keeping an open mind and asking for a reason.

[tyvo]

The reason you would be using a preamp is to improve overall audio performance. Yes, certain DAC's "can" be connected directly to an amplifier with very good results, but we are talking in the $15-20k arena, not where you are. Only at the highest levels of audio, in terms of price, have I ever heard a direct connected DAC to amp scenario which was superior to one connected to a quality preamp

 

JC

 

He has compared two dacs with built-in preamps. So the two products are compared side by side as complete packages. The same source was used in front of both. That's a valid test.

 

Could the result be different in a different setup, yes it probably could. But that's irrelevant.

[mansr]

What if it causes you to be skeptical of the things that will allow you to accomplish your goals for less money (e.g., "I don't want any of that dodgy open source software on my servers. All Microsoft all the way!")?

 

That's prejudice, not scepticism. Being sceptical of things you don't have in favour of those you already possess is cheap.

[Johnseye]

That's prejudice, not scepticism. Being sceptical of things you don't have in favour of those you already possess is cheap.

and sheep make for good suckers. such deep philosophy in a DAC comparison thread.

[tyvo]

I think it's a great comparison although to be fair, the audio alchemy setup is a bit more expensive right?

[Johnseye]

I think it's a great comparison although to be fair, the audio alchemy setup is a bit more expensive right?

The DDP-1 $200 more. Thanks for the kind words.

[tyvo]

The DDP-1 $200 more. Thanks for the kind words.

 

I think the DDP-1 gets too little attention if you consider how good it is. I've auditioned it (with the ps-5) alongside a Yggdrasil and in my opinion the DDP-1 was more natural and relaxed while they resolved just about on the same level. That was on a relatively good system. Macbook Air > DDP-1/Yggdrasil > NAD M22 > Confidence C2 Platinium.

 

Anyways great sounding DAC - especially with the PS-5 upfront.

[gstew]

It doesn't matter whether it's a PC into a DAC for two reasons. Any noise which may or may not be introduced by the PC would be present for both DACs as the only devices to change in the comparison are the DACs. Also, the end opinions of the listeners can hear no discernible "noise" from the PC. Comparisons like this are always subjective to the listener's hearing, equipment and software configuration. Dismissing someone's opinion because it doesn't meet what you consider "optimal" is poorly founded.

 

Stating that no conclusions should be made because a PC sends the music to the DAC via USB is a presumptuous, unfounded statement based on conjecture. What should the source be for a valid conclusion? If there's a power noise filter like the Wyrd or Regen in line does that make it valid? Is there a list of valid music servers allowing for a conclusion to be made?

 

I think you are oversimplifying the situation. One important mechanism is how well the DAC's USB input handles noise and poor USB signals. I can easily imagine a situation where an otherwise very good DAC has a so-so USB input system and another ok DAC has a very good USB input system. Using a typical consumer-grade computer as a source, the 2nd will likely minimize the issues inherent in a USB input and have a good chance of sounding better. OTOH, using an audio-grade computer (whether it be a tweaked and modified computer like some of the JPlay and Paul Pang HW or a purpose-build device like a uRendu, SMS200, or one of the Aries line, to name a few) the better DAC will have a better chance of shining.

 

Best here is to use the USB source you plan to have as your source for the comparison.

 

Greg in Mississippi

[gstew]

I'd like to hear your opinion of how a microrendu is a better source considering the data fed to it must be from another source such as a PC. My understanding is that the mrendu is nothing but a few filters between an RJ45 input and a USB output. How is that any better than a Regen? Furthermore, a PC can be a purpose built source. Would you consider the CAPS Server a purpose built source? That's essentially what I've built. You should give the DDP-1 a listen, or even better a side by side in your own environment.

 

I cannot get how you can term a uRendu a set of filters?

 

In my simplistic, non-technical view of the world, there are three types of circuits / devices relevant to this discussion:

 

1. Filters, which to change the frequency and phase response of a signal fed into it. Many things are filters... AC power filters which reduce HF noise, phono stage RIAA filters and subsonic filters, crossover filters in speakers, digital filters involved in D-to-A conversion, etc. BUT they only serve to change frequency and phase.
    
   
2. 
   
3. Regenerators, which take a signal and recreate it to send via the output. These may be ones that introduce no change in the signal level such as a Regen or RUR, or ones that amplify voltage such as a preamplifier, or ones that amplify current such as an amplifier (of which most amplify both current and voltage). AND they may (typically do) have filters as part of the overall device, with one obvious example again a phono stage which not only amplifies the cartridge signal to a useful level, but also 'decodes' it by applying the RIAA filter to the signal. Another good example of a regenerator is an AC regenerator such as a PS Audio P10 or P5.
    
   
4. 
   
5. Transformation devices, which take a signal and turn it into a different type of signal. These are always more complex and typically involve some sort of processing, whether by a computer or lower-level such as logic-level in early DAC chips or microprocessor-level in more recent ones. These include the DAC chips which take a digital signal and convert it to an analog one, a music playback computer and/or CD/DVD player that takes the data stored on the associated media and converts it into a digital signal (and in these there are often several transformation devices active, to first create the digital signal, then to convert it to a format that can be fed to another device like S/PDIF or USB audio). Note that transformers are not transformation devices, but just regenerators that also do some filtering, as they produce a signal that is the same type as the one fed into the transformer with changes in amplitude (sometimes) and frequency/phase (always).
    
   

 

The uRendu is an example of a transformation device, receiving an Ethernet stream containing the music and transforming it into a USB audio signal. Superdad's explanation is the best description I've seen around your inquiry on why it makes a difference... it creates a USB signal with less noise and greater signal fidelity (having a signal that is what is intended) than a consumer-level computer can do. It has less to do with any filters (although there are filters inside of a uRendu involved in how it works, along with regenerators) and more with a quieter environment (simplistically, good power supplies, along with extraneous noise-producing circuits either shut down or not even included), AND well-designed transforms that produce good clean outputs.

 

But it is clearly MUCH more than a mere filter and involves a LOT of computer processing, especially to provide the different operational modes included.

 

How and/or where did you get the impression it was just a filter?

 

Greg in Mississippi

[Johnseye]

I cannot get how you can term a uRendu a set of filters?

But it is clearly MUCH more than a mere filter and involves a LOT of computer processing, especially to provide the different operational modes included.

 

How and/or where did you get the impression it was just a filter?

 

Greg in Mississippi

Greg, thanks for the explanation in detail. Lots of good info. I see it as a filter because that's what its function is. Otherwise one could come straight out of the media server to the DAC. That media server could sit right next to the DAC on a short run USB cable. The mRendu offers separation from the media server as a device using a less problematic power supply. So it filters the noise from the server's power supply and introduces less noise than the server would. Sure it has to convert the ethernet signal to USB, but the media server does that. The question is what value does the mRendu provide over a directly connected media server. It runs an OS so you could also say it also has a clock, but that doesn't add value. It's the filtering of PS generated noise.

 

John Swensen provided an excellent explanation, as only he could, in my post discussing the subject, not in this DAC comparison post.

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f10-music-servers/microrendu-nuc-jriver-and-roon-31537/index2.html

 

Jesus also commented here, where he essentially said the intent is not to change any packet data. Because no packet data is modified, it all comes down to the physical layer.

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f26-sonore-sponsored/sonore-microrendu-27389/index152.html#post632837

[blue2]

I agree with you it is valid to regard it as a filter implemented by a computer i.e. it's purpose is to remove/reduce RFI (and has other functionality). The funny thing is removing computer generated noise on USB data transmission by using another computer There are other similar solutions like the NAA used with HQPlayer. I think the key to the perceived benefit is decorrelating the RF from the data (over and above galvanic isolation) i.e. the second computer has minimal processing related to the data packets compared to the source computer.

 

Anyway the thread is about your listening impressions - have you listened to the microRendu yet and did it improve anything or change your conclusions?

 

Thanks

[Johnseye]

I agree with you it is valid to regard it as a filter implemented by a computer i.e. it's purpose is to remove/reduce RFI (and has other functionality). The funny thing is removing computer generated noise on USB data transmission by using another computer There are other similar solutions like the NAA used with HQPlayer. I think the key to the perceived benefit is decorrelating the RF from the data (over and above galvanic isolation) i.e. the second computer has minimal processing related to the data packets compared to the source computer.

 

Anyway the thread is about your listening impressions - have you listened to the microRendu yet and did it improve anything or change your conclusions?

 

Thanks

I haven't received the mRendu yet. Once I do I'll post my opinion.

 

It would be great if there was a higher bandwidth version of Toslink, or if optical USB didn't contain the electrical components. That would eliminate all of this. I think I'm also going to use media converters to run fiber from my PC to the mRendu. That should reduce what the mRendu is supposed to filter, leaving only the media converter's PS noise.

[Johnseye]

I think FMCs with something like an LPS-1 to power the downstream FMC are doing the best job. Some people also like non-active filters but not all that tried them do. Also, ethernet receivers running at 100mbps generate less noise than receivers at 1Gb so use, for example, an MC100CM. There is discussion on CA regarding the regularor chips in an FMC and the noise generated. Some are experimenting with linear regulators on the circuit board. Problem here is the heat generated and I am not sure if it helped much.

 

Another thing I found makes digital sound better is a better preamp.

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

Can you point me in the direction of the discussion of the noise generated by a 100 vs 1000 FMC?

Is it this post? http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/optical-network-configurations-24641/

 

I'm wondering if reducing the network speed from 1000 down to 100 has any impact.

 

Do you know of any other LPS options? Not that $400 is unheard of in this hobby, but I'm wondering what else is out there.

 

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction with all this info. It's really helped my understanding of USB noise.

[d_elm]

Can you point me in the direction of the discussion of the noise generated by a 100 vs 1000 FMC?

Is it this post? http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/optical-network-configurations-24641/

 

I'm wondering if reducing the network speed from 1000 down to 100 has any impact.

 

Do you know of any other LPS options? Not that $400 is unheard of in this hobby, but I'm wondering what else is out there.

 

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction with all this info. It's really helped my understanding of USB noise.

 

Not that post. Look at "Overall isolation - network..." I have both MC200CM and MC100CM FMCs and have found the MC100CM to generate less noise than the MC200CM. They are not expensive if you want to try an experiment. 100mbps is more than adequate speed for audio - I play 352.8 with no glitches.

 

To power the downstream FMC I started with a 9v iFi iPower. This was improved by a 7.5-8.5 battery. I had been this route in trying power for the microRendu and had settled on the LPS-1 at 7v so I purchased another LPS-1, set at 5v, for the FMC. Perhaps others can report LPSs for an FMC. Make sure everything is burnt-in and warm, at stable temperture, before evaluating.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile