Microrendu vs SMS200

[jtwrace]

Not sure what you're getting at? I've been enjoying mine for the last 6 months. It's an all around stellar device.

 

Good to hear. Have you tried it compared to the µRendu?

[jtwrace]

Not so strange. SOtM marketed the SMS-100, which was based on Sonic Orbiter OS and sort of a Sonore/SGC developed computer product marketed with SOtM branding. Was also sold by Sonore. Basically an off the shelf all in one board computer playback device run by SonicOrbiter OS written especially for it (instead of a more standard all purpose version of Liinux as OS).

 

SOtM eventually discontinued it and brought out the successor, the SMS-200. Basically, they designed their own new HW and wrote an OS that mimics what SonicOrbiter did for them in the SMS-100. Sonore and SGC are not connected directly to this product. You could say the SMS-100 they helped develop was the "inspiration" for it.

 

The SMS-200 is much the same idea as the mR, but a different design. It adds the ability to attach a USB HD, if you think that is a positive thing (Sonore doesn't think it's a positive for ultimate SQ, and the mR doesn't include it). Instead of having a Regen type USB circuitry built in (like the mR), they use their own ideas about clean USB (derived from their longstanding production of "audiophile" USB cards).

 

I wouldn't call it a coincidence or scary. The SMS-100 was a legit product marketed by SOtM. They simply took the concept and tried to improve it and make it more "audiophile". Without the connection to Sonore/SGC, SOtM couldn't use SonicOrbiter OS. So they wrote something similar.

 

Sonore did the parallel thing with the mR. Different product. Different design decisions. Same basic concept. But they still work with SGC and have rights to use SonicOrbiter OS.

 

Thanks for the informative post!

[4est]

Huh? He doesn't need to establish anything and obviously I did miss it. Big deal. It was a question if he has posted about it. Geez.

 

Sorry I jumped on you... I was (falsly) thinking this was an anti sMS200 statement. There have been suggestions as such because the software is still so similar to the original sMS100 and the present mRendu.

[jtwrace]

Sorry I jumped on you... I was (falsly) thinking this was an anti sMS200 statement. There have been suggestions as such because the software is still so similar to the original sMS100 and the present mRendu.

 

No not at all. I'm just surprised that I missed it that bad honestly. I feel as though as good as the µRendu is there are a few things missing from it from the hardware design and am very curious to know if the sMS200 is a step up in that regard. Guess I might need to find out!

[4est]

No not at all. I'm just surprised that I missed it that bad honestly. I feel as though as good as the µRendu is there are a few things missing from it from the hardware design and am very curious to know if the sMS200 is a step up in that regard. Guess I might need to find out!

 

I am actually surprised to hear that it is competitive with the mRendu. If either would do DSD512 on my gear, I'd be pleased to own either one.

[jtwrace]

I am actually surprised to hear that it is competitive with the mRendu. If either would do DSD512 on my gear, I'd be pleased to own either one.

 

Why are you surprised by that?

[4est]

Why are you surprised by that?

 

I would have thought that Jesus and JS would not be challenged so quickly by a larger company. The sMS100 was pretty pedestrian as a hardware device, and the circuitry was not even manufactured by SoTM.

[jtwrace]

I would have thought that Jesus and JS would not be challenged so quickly by a larger company. The sMS100 was pretty pedestrian as a hardware device, and the circuitry was not even manufactured by SoTM.

 

Gotcha.

[firedog]

I would have thought that Jesus and JS would not be challenged so quickly by a larger company. The sMS100 was pretty pedestrian as a hardware device, and the circuitry was not even manufactured by SoTM.

 

True, but The SMS-100 (I have one) with an upgrade PS sounded very good and with the Regen in line even better. Not as good as the mR, but very good.

 

I'm guessing this was a pretty easy development for both SOtM and Sonore to figure out: build something with similar functionality but with a clean USB and a bespoke "audiophile" build, and allow for upgrade PS.

[jtwrace]

True, but The SMS-100 (I have one) with an upgrade PS sounded very good and with the Regen in line even better. Not as good as the mR, but very good.

 

I'm guessing this was a pretty easy development for both SOtM and Sonore to figure out: build something with similar functionality but with a clean USB and a bespoke "audiophile" build, and allow for upgrade PS.

I thought I saw an upgrade path for the SMS100 to the SMS200 where you just replace the board. Am I wrong? If not, why haven't you done that?

[firedog]

I thought I saw an upgrade path for the SMS100 to the SMS200 where you just replace the board. Am I wrong? If not, why haven't you done that?

 

Not that I know of; they did offer to take them in with trade-in value towards an SMS-200. I didn't do it b/c it came out after the mR and I had already bought that. (I also like the personal service you get from Sonore). If the SMS-200 had been available I might have bought it. No reason for me to buy both.

 

Turns out it also isn't compatible with my present mytek DAC; mR is (I think Sonore-SGC especially wrote a linux driver for it).

[jtwrace]

Not that I know of; they did offer to take them in with trade-in value towards an SMS-200. I didn't do it b/c it came out after the mR and I had already bought that. (I also like the personal service you get from Sonore). If the SMS-200 had been available I might have bought it. No reason for me to buy both.

 

Yep, that's what it was which is pretty rare.

[austinpop]

Good to hear. Have you tried it compared to the µRendu?

 

I have both in house for the last couple of weeks for evaluation. I have a separate thread with my findings. Feel free to take a look.

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/auralic-aries-mini-vs-sonore-microrendu-vs-soul-music-sms-200-listening-impressions-31499/

 

Bottom line - it's very close. I wouldn't sell one to get the other.

[4est]

I'm guessing this was a pretty easy development for both SOtM and Sonore to figure out: build something with similar functionality but with a clean USB and a bespoke "audiophile" build, and allow for upgrade PS.

 

I did not see this conclusion. From what I remember, Alex was pretty proud of JS's accomplishments and talked the mRendu up. The sMS100 was a Pogoplug in a prettier case with great software. I owned one too, and it did sound great, especially with a good PS- strong proof of concept so to speak. I wish I had more details as to what the SoTM is. From what I know, both companies have different approaches to USB. With JS's power supply prowess, Jesus and the software, I would have given the mRendu the edge on a bet. It will be interesting to see what the upgraded sMS has to offer. Especially considering one can put a Regen on the output, and possibly eek a bit more out of it. Mostly though, I wish I could do DSD512 with either on my Amanero, and I'd buy one!

[artur9]

Mostly though, I wish I could do DSD512 with either on my Amanero, and I'd buy one!

 

With the MPD option on the SMS-200 you can do DOP, at least there's a checkbox for it.

[mirekti]

Could someone try to explain it to me, in few words, what is actually bad when one uses direct USB from a computer compared to these units, please?

If one has galvanically isolated USB on the DAC and it is asynchronus, where the issue is comming from?

Thanks!

[paul30d]

Could someone try to explain it to me, in few words, what is actually bad when one uses direct USB from a computer compared to these units, please?

If one has galvanically isolated USB on the DAC and it is asynchronus, where the issue is comming from?

Thanks!

These units are silent - no moving parts. That's the advantage for me. It allowed me to put the pc/server and hard drives in other room, with just a network connection at the listening area. That was worth it for me.

 

I know what you are getting at, but I won't buy into that debate.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[mirekti]

I know what you are getting at, but I won't buy into that debate.

 

No hidden agendas on my side.

Moving a PC as a mechanical noise source to another room makes sense.

Thanks.

[jcn3]

No hidden agendas on my side.

Moving a PC as a mechanical noise source to another room makes sense.

Thanks.

 

in addition to having no moving parts, both devices are stripped down to do the bare minimum (feed music files to the dac). by having minimal hardware and software, much less power is required and therefore less noise is generated.

 

pcs have much more going on, require more power and aren't designed to minimize noise in the audio path, so therefore generate more noise.

[Superdad]

Could someone try to explain it to me, in few words, what is actually bad when one uses direct USB from a computer compared to these units, please?

If one has galvanically isolated USB on the DAC and it is asynchronus, where the issue is comming from?

Thanks!

 

If you are referring to DACs list galvanic isolation as a feature, please be aware that:

 

a) Lots of DACs--well more than just the ones that tout it--have digital isolators between the output of their USB>I2S input stage and the DAC chips themselves (and all digital isolators add jitter--some more than others--so you will often see a rechecking flip-flop after the isolator);

 

b) ALL of those are isolating AFTER the USB input PHY chip and processor, so all DACs are affected to some extent by variations in USB signal integrity (eye-pattern), impedance match, and leakage currents.

 

Much has been written about the how and why such factors have an impact on SQ (hint, it is about reducing bursty activity inside the DAC itself), and whole companies (mine included) have been built around offering effective solutions to issue. (Despite what some may try to claim, thousands of REGEN, Intona, etc. buyers are not deluding themselves. )

 

---------------------

 

Perhaps more to the point of your question about the potential advantage of a very small, low power, Linux-based computer (what both the mR and sMS-200 are) as network endpoints before your DAC:

a) Minimizing active processes--by using a slim Linux-variant in a computer reduces "bursty" noise on the ground-plane of the device, and that is good;

 

b) Having all processor and I/O intensive functions such as file serving, library management, graphical user interface, and sample rate conversion take place on a powerful desktop or other machine on the network allows the renderer to be a "quiet", low-power device with very little activity;

 

b) As opposed to commodity computers (even small ones) which use a ton of switching regulators and crappy clocks, the custom boards of the microRendu, etc. use ultra-low-noise linear voltage regulators and low-jitter/low-phase-noise clocks;

 

c) Ethernet is inherently galvanically isolated (there is a tiny transformer inside every Ethernet device jack);

 

d) These renderer devices can be powered from an external low-noise supply, and ideally--as with batteries or our UltraCap LPS-1--with a supply that blocks the path of AC leakage currents, allowing the Ethernet-attached renderer to truly fulfill its promise of 100% isolation.

 

e) These renderer devices offer multiple software modes to allow use with a variety of server/player/controller schemes, and both Sonore and SOtM continue to enhance the feature set via s/w upgrades as the market changes (i.e. Roon, etc.)

 

I am sure I left some things out, but the above comprises the basic reasons for these devices.

Try one and you are likely to understand in a far better way than my words can convey.

[mirekti]

If you are referring to DACs list galvanic isolation as a feature, please be aware that:

Thank you very much for the comprehensive explanation, I appreciate the effort.

[DavidZ]

For people on CA considering the SMS 200, I thought I'd add my two bits. I am enjoying mine immensely. I also want to give a shout out to Kamal at Crux Audio. They are the new SOTM U.S. distributor, and a welcome (and needed) improvement, from my perspective, to SOTM's U.S. marketing efforts. 

[spacexpert]

On 06/03/2017 at 7:55 AM, Superdad said:

b) Having all processor and I/O intensive functions such as file serving, library management, graphical user interface, and sample rate conversion take place on a powerful desktop or other machine on the network allows the renderer to be a "quiet", low-power device with very little activity;

 

I'm very new to all this, so forgive my ignorance.

 

I want to get the most out of my LPS-1 Ultracap, so I am thinking about an SMS-200 to go with my up coming ISO Regen.  

 

So continuing in the theme of bang for buck.

 

In a situation where an LPS powered hard drive is attached to the SMS-200 USB input...  (perhaps with galvanic isolation added as well)

 

So now the server isn't transferring the audio, and is more or less functioning as a "control/core."  So does the server now matter all that much sound quality wise?  

 

And a tricky one... does ethernet bridging make sense in this simplified configuration?  Or is that pointless with audio files not going over a router anyway?

 

I guess I'll have plenty of time to experiment, but just wondered if I'm on the right track with my thinking?

 

 

[greenleo]

3 hours ago, spacexpert said:

 

I'm very new to all this, so forgive my ignorance.

 

I want to get the most out of my LPS-1 Ultracap, so I am thinking about an SMS-200 to go with my up coming ISO Regen.  

 

So continuing in the theme of bang for buck.

 

In a situation where an LPS powered hard drive is attached to the SMS-200 USB input...  (perhaps with galvanic isolation added as well)

 

So now the server isn't transferring the audio, and is more or less functioning as a "control/core."  So does the server now matter all that much sound quality wise?  

 

And a tricky one... does ethernet bridging make sense in this simplified configuration?  Or is that pointless with audio files not going over a router anyway?

 

I guess I'll have plenty of time to experiment, but just wondered if I'm on the right track with my thinking?

 

 

1. I believe using the sms-200 for the heavy duty of the file server will degrade the SQ as already explained by Alex and reported by other members.

 

2. Bridging bypass the router and provides direct connection.

 

3. Now the music files need not pass through the LAN cable and I guess the direct connection will not have much effects to help the SQ.

 

My 2 cents.

[tedwoods]

3 hours ago, spacexpert said:

 

I'm very new to all this, so forgive my ignorance.

 

I want to get the most out of my LPS-1 Ultracap, so I am thinking about an SMS-200 to go with my up coming ISO Regen.  

 

So continuing in the theme of bang for buck.

 

In a situation where an LPS powered hard drive is attached to the SMS-200 USB input...  (perhaps with galvanic isolation added as well)

 

So now the server isn't transferring the audio, and is more or less functioning as a "control/core."  So does the server now matter all that much sound quality wise?  

 

And a tricky one... does ethernet bridging make sense in this simplified configuration?  Or is that pointless with audio files not going over a router anyway?

 

I guess I'll have plenty of time to experiment, but just wondered if I'm on the right track with my thinking?

 

 

In a situation where an external disc is mounted on the sms-200 (MPD and such), the server acts as controller only, so it doesn't affect SQ and direct connection does not apply.

But there are other concerns in the sms-200 usage scenario you are describing:

1. Most probably the LPS-1 won't have the juice to power the sms-200 with an external disc attached. You'll need another power supply.

2. Mounting an external disc on the sms-200 means that some of the benefits of going through Ethernet are lost.