Auralic Aries & Sonore microRendu listening impressions

[austinpop]

Hi Austinpop,

 

The Jensen arrived yesterday, but the seller had not wrapped it well. It is a heavy thing and he had placed it in a padded envelope, from which it had escaped. When I connected it up only one channel worked, groan. He is sending me another.

 

The one channel that did work sounded like a step up from the ART.

 

In terms of balanced cables: For the moment I am slotting in standard professional fare between the DAC and the transformer, so I was very surprised when the made a big difference. Originally I was using a pair of 2m Sommer OFC that I had in a cupboard. For neatness I order a pair of 0.5 xlr off Amazon, mistake; they seemed to act like a low pass filter, I used them for three days and went back. Once my dealer has a sale I'll probably buy a pair of Chord XLRs, which is what I use between my pre and power amps.

 

I'll report back when the replacement Jensen has arrived.

 

M

Man, shipping damage is always a bummer.

 

Thanks for your comments on the cables. Sounds like I need to factor in that expense if I add the Jensen.

[MrUnderhill]

Better than my EAR534. I sent it home for a service and it arrived back with four broken valves and a dislodged support bar! Thank you UPS! Insurance pays on occasion.

 

For me the ART was installed post all the other changes. This revealed detail but I had a pervasive feel of the music having some edge, and on some recordings the Ss and Ts really zinged. Inserting the transformer immediately solved this. Whether the issue is Leakage Currents, Grounding or some form of oscillation I don't know.

 

If you are not hearing an issue like I have described above I would not be inclined to go down this route, or buy the ART DTI which is MUCH cheaper and get a feel whether this is worthwhile. By then I will have tested the Jensen, I hope, and then you can decide whether more is better.

 

ATB

 

M

[miguelito]

Then I would add, better do Roon, as both Aries and MicroRendu support RAAT. [emoji3]

 

You don't need a separate device for Roon, although it is suggested that is the best setup

Intel NUC & sonicTransporter: A Tale Of Two Mini Computers Running Roon Core | AudioStream

I would be interested in comparing Roon output between Aries and mR over RAAT as well as HQPlayer with upsampling over NAA to mR with the above.

[austinpop]

If you are not hearing an issue like I have described above I would not be inclined to go down this route, or buy the ART DTI which is MUCH cheaper and get a feel whether this is worthwhile. By then I will have tested the Jensen, I hope, and then you can decide whether more is better.

 

M,

 

Yeah this is pretty low on my list. I'm not at a point where I have a problem - in fact, quite the opposite - my system has never sounded better. But I keep getting surprised by further improvements as I tweak.

 

I look forward to your results.

[scan80269]

Thanks. I currently have Ayre Signature XLR between my DAC and amp, and Moon Audio Black Dragon balanced for the HD800.

 

I am curious whether, with all your other ground leakage loop efforts in place, with FMCs, LPS-1, Intona, etc, the Jensen's still have an impact? Or was it inserted pre-digital tweaks? I always ask myself that question when I cascade tweaks upon tweaks - what am I hearing - or not hearing - because of other isolation efforts in my overall system?

 

Would you be willing to add this to your list of experiments next time you do a listening session at your friend's? BTW - you've made him/her sound like a real man/woman of mystery!

 

I guess the questions on the table for me are:

• Will the Jensen help or hinder in my setup?
  
• Does the quality of the XLR cable from the DAC to the Jensen input matter (i.e. another expense!)?
  
• Does the benefit of my Ayre Signature cable over cheaper cables hold once I have the Jensen?
  

 

Guess I'm putting a Jensen PI-2XX on my wish-list! Not sure when the coffers will allow.

As always, eagerly awaiting your findings!

Believe it or not, I'm currently not using every single tweak evaluated with my Aries Femto. For example, there is no Intona, W4F RUR or Regen, FMCs, LPS-1 in my setup. There's a custom CAT5e cable with connectivity in only two twisted pairs, to force Aries Femto to talk at 100Mbps, and an EN-70HD isolator, connecting to my Orbi satellite. On the USB side I have an SBooster VBus2 isolator and WireWorld Platinum Starlight USB cable, but that's it. The Vega DAC balanced XLR outputs run through Mogami Gold XLR cables to the Jensen PI-2XX, then to my Taurus headphone amp. Power supply for Aries Femto is UpTone JS-2.

 

Regarding the Jensen, I don't believe there's a sure way to determine ahead of time whether it will be beneficial or detrimental. I am one of three people within my local audio circle of friends using the PI-2XX and we are all pleased with the results. Admittedly adding the Jensen is more counterintuitive than common sense, and its adoption was based almost completely on listening tests.

 

One thing about the PI-2XX. Its datasheet mentions the requirement of cable length to be kept within 1 meter to preserve the rated high-frequency bandwidth. The PI-2XX has a Faraday shield responsible for extremely high noise rejection but unavoidably makes their outputs sensitive to capacitive loading. The cable length on the output side of PI-2XX therefore needs to be carefully managed. If longer cable lengths are required, different Jensen ISO-MAX models can be selected.

[austinpop]

Believe it or not, I'm currently not using every single tweak evaluated with my Aries Femto. For example, there is no Intona, W4F RUR or Regen, FMCs, LPS-1 in my setup. There's a custom CAT5e cable with connectivity in only two twisted pairs, to force Aries Femto to talk at 100Mbps, and an EN-70HD isolator, connecting to my Orbi satellite. On the USB side I have an SBooster VBus2 isolator and WireWorld Platinum Starlight USB cable, but that's it. The Vega DAC balanced XLR outputs run through Mogami Gold XLR cables to the Jensen PI-2XX, then to my Taurus headphone amp. Power supply for Aries Femto is UpTone JS-2.

 

Regarding the Jensen, I don't believe there's a sure way to determine ahead of time whether it will be beneficial or detrimental. I am one of three people within my local audio circle of friends using the PI-2XX and we are all pleased with the results. Admittedly adding the Jensen is more counterintuitive than common sense, and its adoption was based almost completely on listening tests.

 

One thing about the PI-2XX. Its datasheet mentions the requirement of cable length to be kept within 1 meter to preserve the rated high-frequency bandwidth. The PI-2XX has a Faraday shield responsible for extremely high noise rejection but unavoidably makes their outputs sensitive to capacitive loading. The cable length on the output side of PI-2XX therefore needs to be carefully managed. If longer cable lengths are required, different Jensen ISO-MAX models can be selected.

 

So you have Mogami Gold on both sides of the Jensen?

[scan80269]

So you have Mogami Gold on both sides of the Jensen?

Yes, 2-foot Mogami Gold cables on both sides.

[lmitche]

Hi all, I have ignored this thread as I don't have an Aries or microRendu. Nevertheless most of what is posted here is relevant in any system. I don't know if we can make this thread title more general, but it would be helpful to others.

 

Having read the whole thread, the findings are really spot on with my experience, including the EMOsystems Baaske bakeoff, BJC cat6a findings . . . Etc.

 

One thing though, on first reading, I'm uncomfortable about the 100 mbs Ethernet SQ findings. This is not consistent with what I am hearing in my rig. So let me share the differences.

 

My HQplayer PC connects to my NAS via two one foot BJC cat6a cables with an EMOsystems en70hd in between. Both motherboards are Intel machines and the on board Ethernet nic is used.

 

On the Win10/HQplayer upsampling machine, I use the Intel adapter settings to disable all nic based offload capabilities for the exception of the checksum for ipv4. I turn off flow control as well.

 

This greatly improves SQ. I don't know why, but suspect the reduction in electrical activity is the benefit.

 

Having read that you all are finding 100 mbs better than 1 GB, I forced the nic to 100mbs. Everything else is the same. It definitely sounds different. But not as good, at least to my ear. I am losing presence that is definitely stronger in the 1gb config.

 

My hypothesis is that a nic configured as default with most off-load functions enabled will increase processing noise, and that noise is lessened at lower nic speeds. However, by disabling the offloads, the benefits of the 1gb performance outway the costs.

 

This is a simple experiment for someone to reproduced independently, and it is in that spirit that I share these details. I look forward to hearing the observations of others in this regard.

 

Now I realize that the nic settings can't be changed by the end user on the Aries or microRendu. Too bad. I just hate to see others with more flexible systems spend money on a hardware solution to force things to 100 mbs, when reconfiguring the nic will result in a better solution.

 

What a great thread!

[scan80269]

Thanks for your comments, Larry!

 

I may be increasingly in favor of using a "100Mbps only" Ethernet cable to force networking speed to 100Mbps, instead of using an additional 100Mbps switch. All things equal, I prefer a passive solution than an active one. The cable solution is also way cheaper. I hacked one CAT5e cable by insulating pins 4,5,7,8 at one RJ45 plug with superglue gel.

 

Having said that, I will still put in the effort to replace the switching regulator inside a Netgear FS105v3 Fast Ethernet switch with a linear regulator. Completing this mod will make the switch a "no-SMPS" solution, when powered with an external LPS. I may also do the same for one downstream FMC. I'm eager to determine how a modded FS105v3 switch compares in SQ with the "100Mbps only" Ethernet cable, so there will be some listening tests scheduled for these.

 

It's a shame products like Aries or microRendu do not support Ethernet settings adjustments. I suppose such settings can only be controlled by the Linux driver of the NIC within the products? My friend and I have used 100Mbps on Aries Femto with great results, but we may never know if disabling NIC offload functions can yield even better SQ.

[lmitche]

The other thing you can do is to eliminate the switch. My NAS machine runs Archlinux with two NICs ports, one to the internet(via a lps powered, emosystems en70hd isolated, wired wireless adapter) the other direct to the upsampling machine as described above.

 

Using Linux I have bridged the two NICs together, so the NAS works as a virtual switch.

 

QNAPs latest release does the same.

 

This a!lows you to retire your switch and it's noisy, ground loop inducing, power supply altogether.

 

Recommended!

[Albrecht]

Thanks for your comments, Larry!

 

I may be increasingly in favor of using a "100Mbps only" Ethernet cable to force networking speed to 100Mbps, instead of using an additional 100Mbps switch. All things equal, I prefer a passive solution than an active one. The cable solution is also way cheaper. I hacked one CAT5e cable by insulating pins 4,5,7,8 at one RJ45 plug with superglue gel.

 

.

Hiya...

I'm not trying to criticize anyone, (even Auralic), but in what world does a NIC "perform better" at a slower speed? It just doesn't make sense from the perspective of traditional high-end audio, - where speed is a such an important element of "sounds good"

Yeah, - for sure, - the complications of component interaction in a high performance system get muddled a bit... but something tells me that there's something wrong with either the hardware, or hardware isolation in the Aries. When you couple that with a company that has a pretty substantial "hardware problem:" i am not too sure about the viability of buying expensive band-aids.

 

When you release a product in these times with only 512MB of RAM, - that's a huge indication to me that they don't know what they're doing, or at the very least, over-emphasizing the importance of software.

[scan80269]

Hiya...

I'm not trying to criticize anyone, (even Auralic), but in what world does a NIC "perform better" at a slower speed? It just doesn't make sense from the perspective of traditional high-end audio, - where speed is a such an important element of "sounds good"

Yeah, - for sure, - the complications of component interaction in a high performance system get muddled a bit... but something tells me that there's something wrong with either the hardware, or hardware isolation in the Aries. When you couple that with a company that has a pretty substantial "hardware problem:" i am not too sure about the viability of buying expensive band-aids.

 

When you release a product in these times with only 512MB of RAM, - that's a huge indication to me that they don't know what they're doing, or at the very least, over-emphasizing the importance of software.

There is no hard and fast rule, so I cannot and will not make any blanket claim that streaming at 100Mbps can always deliver better SQ than at gigabit speed. The NIC does not perform "better" at 100Mbps, but gigabit speed is arguably overkill for audio streaming purposes. 24/384K audio has a ~18.4Mbps bit rate, and there is no currently known high-resolution audio format that gets bottlenecked by 100Mbps networking and resulting in dropouts, disruptions, etc.

 

As to why 100Mbps can deliver better SQ than gigabit (at least in certain setups), my theory is that compared to gigabit, 100Mbps results in: (1) lower electrical noise generation within the streamer (receiving audio stream from Ethernet) and (2) lower level of high-frequency noise conducted into the streamer via the Ethernet cable.

 

(1) lower electrical noise - is accomplished by the Ethernet PHY working with only two active pairs of differential signals over the cable, and also at 1 bit per symbol (rate = 125 Mega symbols per second). Gigabit uses all 4 differential signal pairs and at 2 bits per symbol, so the PHY has to work much harder in real time to recover a data stream at 1000Mbps (gigabit), and it is easy to picture more electrical noise generated by the Ethernet PHY (within the NIC chip) at the gigabit speed, perhaps not at 10X the noise level vs. 100Mbps, but a substantial difference nevertheless.

 

(2) lower level of high-frequency noise conducted by Ethernet cable - this is mainly due to 100Mbps (100Base-TX) working with only two differential signal pairs, compared to gigabit using all 4 pairs. Whatever the amount of high-frequency noise coupling onto these differential pairs, the Ethernet PHY on the receiving end should see less noise coming in over 2 pairs compared to 4 pairs.

 

Theories aside, my adoption of 100Mbps streaming for Aries Femto was the result of careful listening tests based on control experiments. Prior to this tweak I did not know what to expect, and whether the SQ would improve or degrade, but I have separately heard that the Sonore microRendu may not perform at its best when talking at gigabit, so I started becoming curious as to how the Ethernet link rate may affect the Aries Femto SQ, thus the experimentation at 100Mbps.

 

Within this past year or two, my friend and I have encountered so many counterintuitive tweaks for our digital audio systems we almost cannot count them with our bare hands. Adding more equipment into the audio chain is supposed to cause sonic degradation, but in a number of cases the SQ actually got better in specific aspects. My friend and I regularly attend orchestra concerts in a good hall to calibrate our ears, so good concert hall sound is how we gauge the listening experience, and is essentially our yardstick as opposed to the "Hi Fi" sound or some other measure. We would call a tweak beneficial only if it brings the sound closer to the live concert hall experience. I fully believe and acknowledge that what I would call better SQ other people may not. As usual, YMMV.

[Cornan]

There is no hard and fast rule, so I cannot and will not make any blanket claim that streaming at 100Mbps can always deliver better SQ than at gigabit speed. The NIC does not perform "better" at 100Mbps, but gigabit speed is arguably overkill for audio streaming purposes. 24/384K audio has a ~18.4Mbps bit rate, and there is no currently known high-resolution audio format that gets bottlenecked by 100Mbps networking and resulting in dropouts, disruptions, etc.

 

As to why 100Mbps can deliver better SQ than gigabit (at least in certain setups), my theory is that compared to gigabit, 100Mbps results in: (1) lower electrical noise generation within the streamer (receiving audio stream from Ethernet) and (2) lower level of high-frequency noise conducted into the streamer via the Ethernet cable.

 

(1) lower electrical noise - is accomplished by the Ethernet PHY working with only two active pairs of differential signals over the cable, and also at 1 bit per symbol (rate = 125 Mega symbols per second). Gigabit uses all 4 differential signal pairs and at 2 bits per symbol, so the PHY has to work much harder in real time to recover a data stream at 1000Mbps (gigabit), and it is easy to picture more electrical noise generated by the Ethernet PHY (within the NIC chip) at the gigabit speed, perhaps not at 10X the noise level vs. 100Mbps, but a substantial difference nevertheless.

 

(2) lower level of high-frequency noise conducted by Ethernet cable - this is mainly due to 100Mbps (100Base-TX) working with only two differential signal pairs, compared to gigabit using all 4 pairs. Whatever the amount of high-frequency noise coupling onto these differential pairs, the Ethernet PHY on the receiving end should see less noise coming in over 2 pairs compared to 4 pairs.

 

Theories aside, my adoption of 100Mbps streaming for Aries Femto was the result of careful listening tests based on control experiments. Prior to this tweak I did not know what to expect, and whether the SQ would improve or degrade, but I have separately heard that the Sonore microRendu may not perform at its best when talking at gigabit, so I started becoming curious as to how the Ethernet link rate may affect the Aries Femto SQ, thus the experimentation at 100Mbps.

 

Within this past year or two, my friend and I have encountered so many counterintuitive tweaks for our digital audio systems we almost cannot count them with our bare hands. Adding more equipment into the audio chain is supposed to cause sonic degradation, but in a number of cases the SQ actually got better in specific aspects. My friend and I regularly attend orchestra concerts in a good hall to calibrate our ears, so good concert hall sound is how we gauge the listening experience, and is essentially our yardstick as opposed to the "Hi Fi" sound or some other measure. We would call a tweak beneficial only if it brings the sound closer to the live concert hall experience. I fully believe and acknowledge that what I would call better SQ other people may not. As usual, YMMV.

 

Very interesting scan!

Do you know exactly which RJ45 signal pairs that is reuired for 100Mbps streaming? I see more and more proof of similarities between my finding in USB cables with your and others findings in Ethernet cables.

I do wonder if not a DIY unshielded signal pair cable will be the next step for me to try out instead of the FMCs which actually add additional power supplies to the audio chain? With two of these it should be fairly easy to make that experiment:

 

I am just not sure which ones I´ll need to connect for 100Mbps streaming....so I would truly appreciate a pointer from you or someone else (gladly with a description what the specific pins do as well)!

 

Thanks for a great thread!

 

Ps. I also want to try to separate the two twisted signal pairs on a distance from each other to see if that will make a difference as well...since it will most likely reduce the capasitive coupling along the lenght of the wires. Ds.

[scan80269]

Very interesting scan!

Do you know exactly which RJ45 signal pairs that is reuired for 100Mbps streaming? I see more and more proof of similarities between my finding in USB cables with your and others findings in Ethernet cables.

I do wonder if not a DIY unshielded signal pair cable will be the next step for me to try out instead of the FMCs which actually add additional power supplies to the audio chain? With two of these it should be fairly easy to make that experiment:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]31555[/ATTACH]

I am just not sure which ones I´ll need to connect for 100Mbps streaming....so I would truly appreciate a pointer from you or someone else (gladly with a description what the specific pins do as well)!

 

Thanks for a great thread!

 

Ps. I also want to try to separate the two twisted signal pairs on a distance from each other to see if that will make a difference as well...since it will most likely reduce the capasitive coupling along the lenght of the wires. Ds.

 

Based on the TIA/EIA-568-B.1-2001 T568B wiring standard, the pin definitions of the 4 twisted pairs are as follows:

 

* Pair 1: pins 5 & 4 (blue)

* Pair 2: pins 1 & 2 (orange)

* Pair 3: pins 3 & 6 (green)

* Pair 4: pins 7 & 8 (brown)

 

For 100Base-TX, pins 1 & 2 and pins 3 & 6 are active. For gigabit (1000Base-T), all 4 pairs are active.

 

I converted a standard CAT5e cable to "100Mbps only" by insulating pins 4,5,7 & 8 at the RJ45 plug with superglue gel. My friend will make me a cable with pins 4,5,7 & 8 not connected at either RJ45 plug to achieve the same result.

 

Increasing separation between the 1/2 and 3/6 pairs should reduce alien crosstalk, which is critical for 10Gbps operation (CAT6a), but should be less critical for gigabit or 100Mbps operation. It would be interesting to determine the effects on SQ at 100Mbps, though.

 

I have on order from BlueJeansCable several CAT5e & CAT6 cables (I already have some CAT6a from them) of 1-foot and 7-foot lengths, and will be comparing them directly for SQ merit. My friend has discovered that 7-foot/2-meter cables can in some cases sound better than 1-foot cables. His theory is that at 2-meters, any signal reflections arriving at the receiver end are delayed sufficiently to not have an impact on how the initial signal waveform is seen by the receiver chip. The same reasoning may apply to other cables such as coax, AES/EBU and possibly even USB cables. Normally, shorter is better for cables, but this assumes the cable has ideal impedance (single-ended or differential) with no part of the signal being reflected due to impedance discontinuities, which is never 100% true in practice. "Return Loss" is a measure of the loss caused by signals in the cable reflecting as a result of changes of impedance of the line.

 

The pin 3/6 pair likely has the worst impedance discontinuity due to it being terminated into non-adjacent pins. Crosstalk between pairs is likely worst between the 3/6 and 4/5 pairs. The 4 twisted pairs are supposed to have different numbers of twists per length to reduce alien crosstalk. The device in your picture looks interesting, but I don't know how much of an impedance bump it will have on each twisted pair. Differential impedance will change whenever the spacing between the two wires of a pair changes.

 

I look forward to hearing your findings on this experiment!

[Cornan]

Based on the TIA/EIA-568-B.1-2001 T568B wiring standard, the pin definitions of the 4 twisted pairs are as follows:

 

* Pair 1: pins 5 & 4 (blue)

* Pair 2: pins 1 & 2 (orange)

* Pair 3: pins 3 & 6 (green)

* Pair 4: pins 7 & 8 (brown)

 

For 100Base-TX, pins 1 & 2 and pins 3 & 6 are active. For gigabit (1000Base-T), all 4 pairs are active.

 

I converted a standard CAT5e cable to "100Mbps only" by insulating pins 4,5,7 & 8 at the RJ45 plug with superglue gel. My friend will make me a cable with pins 4,5,7 & 8 not connected at either RJ45 plug to achieve the same result.

 

Increasing separation between the 1/2 and 3/6 pairs should reduce alien crosstalk, which is critical for 10Gbps operation (CAT6a), but should be less critical for gigabit or 100Mbps operation. It would be interesting to determine the effects on SQ at 100Mbps, though.

 

I have on order from BlueJeansCable several CAT5e & CAT6 cables (I already have some CAT6a from them) of 1-foot and 7-foot lengths, and will be comparing them directly for SQ merit. My friend has discovered that 7-foot/2-meter cables can in some cases sound better than 1-foot cables. His theory is that at 2-meters, any signal reflections arriving at the receiver end are delayed sufficiently to not have an impact on how the initial signal waveform is seen by the receiver chip. The same reasoning may apply to other cables such as coax, AES/EBU and possibly even USB cables. Normally, shorter is better for cables, but this assumes the cable has ideal impedance (single-ended or differential) with no part of the signal being reflected due to impedance discontinuities, which is never 100% true in practice. "Return Loss" is a measure of the loss caused by signals in the cable reflecting as a result of changes of impedance of the line.

 

The pin 3/6 pair likely has the worst impedance discontinuity due to it being terminated into non-adjacent pins. Crosstalk between pairs is likely worst between the 3/6 and 4/5 pairs. The 4 twisted pairs are supposed to have different numbers of twists per length to reduce alien crosstalk. The device in your picture looks interesting, but I don't know how much of an impedance bump it will have on each twisted pair. Differential impedance will change whenever the spacing between the two wires of a pair changes.

 

I look forward to hearing your findings on this experiment!

 

Thanks a lot scan!

 

I have already ordered the screw terminal RJ45 plugs ($6,98/2pcs incl. freight from Online Shopping for Cool Gadgets, RC helicopter & Quadcopter, Mobile Phone, Fashion at Banggood.com) and this 22AWG silver wire 25 feet 22 AWG Silver Plated PTFE Wrap Wire Red 19 strand Gore | eBay (with a bloody expensive freight charge though).

As soon as I receive it I will put it together with pins 1 & 2 and pins 3 & 6 on a "safe" distance from each other. If I like the result I will most likely silver solder the pins to get best possible connection.

 

It is quite funny how similar it is to USB for audio when you think about it. It was "a fact" for a long time that USB cables needed longer runs (minimum 100cm). We know better now!

 

I think that the whole story about impedance match is extremely exaggerated. It only matters with cable runs of km in distance...not meters. That is my own personal opinion though!

 

Anyway, thanks a lot for your detailed information. I will keep you posted how my cable turns out!

 

/Micael

[MrUnderhill]

Believe it or not, I'm currently not using every single tweak evaluated with my Aries Femto. For example, there is no Intona, W4F RUR or Regen, FMCs, LPS-1 in my setup.

 

Hi Scan,

 

This is on my list of things to do, strip out all the USB bits and see what really counts. The question in my mind is what is the Line Isolator solving? I spoke to a EE I know who wasn't convinced that it was either a grounding issue or a leakage loop, as he didn't feel that either would have the sound signature that we both have described.

 

M

[MrUnderhill]

Hi all, I have ignored this thread as I don't have an Aries or microRendu. Nevertheless most of what is posted here is relevant in any system. I don't know if we can make this thread title more general, but it would be helpful to others.

 

Having read the whole thread, the findings are really spot on with my experience, including the EMOsystems Baaske bakeoff, BJC cat6a findings . . . Etc.

 

One thing though, on first reading, I'm uncomfortable about the 100 mbs Ethernet SQ findings.

 

Hi Larry,

 

The post that I read that made me ensure I bought 100MB FMCs was with respect to the microRendu by Jesus of Sonore. The mR NIC is 100MB and 1GB input speeds can overload its stack and cause dropouts. This was then further backed up by another poster who posited that 1GB NICs are noisier.

 

I think you have done precisely the right thing, tried for yourself and decided what sounds best in your system.

 

M

[austinpop]

This coming Saturday I hope to spend some time at another friend's place to assess Aries Mini SQ using wireless, gigabit Ethernet and 100Mbps Ethernet networking options. I've already shared auditioning results for such an exercise with Aries Femto, but want to determine whether Aries Mini can benefit from the same tweak.

 

Hi Scan,

 

It just occurred to me to ask: have you ever done a head-to-head between the Aries Mini and the Aries Femto? If you have the ability and interest to do that, your results would be fascinating, particularly with the isolation tweaks in place.

 

My Aries Mini has scaled so far in SQ from when I first got it a year ago, especially with all the isolation tweaks, that I now wonder if there is anything to be gained by "upgrading" to a microRendu or big Aries.

[scan80269]

Hi Larry,

 

The post that I read that made me ensure I bought 100MB FMCs was with respect to the microRendu by Jesus of Sonore. The mR NIC is 100MB and 1GB input speeds can overload its stack and cause dropouts. This was then further backed up by another poster who posited that 1GB NICs are noisier.

 

I think you have done precisely the right thing, tried for yourself and decided what sounds best in your system.

 

M

I found these statements in Chris' microRendu review, part 1:

 

"The microRendu contains a 10/100/1000 Gbps Ethernet interface. This interface is limited to 470 Mbps due to the internal i.MX6 bus. Audiophile needn't worry about this "limitation" because 470 Mbps is still hundreds of Mbps more than is required for even the highest resolution audio files."

 

I was able to confirm the microRendu establishing gigabit link speed with my GS108 switch. The data throughput is apparently below line speed, but even 470 Mbps is overkill for high-resolution streaming.

 

I would agree that 100Mbps FMCs are the way to go, and I'll be buying a pair of these for myself.

[MrUnderhill]

I'll go hunting! ;-D

 

M

 

......when I get back from Choir practice.

[scan80269]

Hi Scan,

 

It just occurred to me to ask: have you ever done a head-to-head between the Aries Mini and the Aries Femto? If you have the ability and interest to do that, your results would be fascinating, particularly with the isolation tweaks in place.

 

My Aries Mini has scaled so far in SQ from when I first got it a year ago, especially with all the isolation tweaks, that I now wonder if there is anything to be gained by "upgrading" to a microRendu or big Aries.

If you are referring to comparing Aries Femto with Aries Mini without using its internal DAC, I haven't done an apples-to-apples comparison, so I'll need to schedule another listening session at my friend's place.

 

The Aries' FemtoClocks for USB and digital outputs is possibly one factor accounting for SQ difference between the Femto and the Mini. When the Mini first showed up last year, my friends and I did some casual listening and agreed it delivers roughly 80% of the SQ of the Femto, and this was with the internal DAC, so we all thought the Mini is one heck of a bargain, even though it didn't quite measure up to the Femto, which was expected given the huge price difference. If the Mini is used as a renderer with the isolation tweaks & LPS, etc., the difference with Femto may be even smaller, and the audibility of this difference may depend on the rest of the system.

 

Stay tuned!

[hornytoad]

Here's my impression of the Auralic Femto and the MicroRendu with an Uptone lps-1

 

The Femto sound quality is better than the microRendu in soundstage but the microRendu has better clarity .

 

For me the biggest difference is Roon quality since that's what I mostly use .

 

The microRendu has better Roon audio quality ( I'm not using HQ player ) than the Femto Aries . I'm not sure why as they both use the Roon code .

Anyone else see the same thing here ?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Albrecht]

There is no hard and fast rule, so I cannot and will not make any blanket claim that streaming at 100Mbps can always deliver better SQ than at gigabit speed. The NIC does not perform "better" at 100Mbps, but gigabit speed is arguably overkill for audio streaming purposes. 24/384K audio has a ~18.4Mbps bit rate, and there is no currently known high-resolution audio format that gets bottlenecked by 100Mbps networking and resulting in dropouts, disruptions, etc.

 

As to why 100Mbps can deliver better SQ than gigabit (at least in certain setups), my theory is that compared to gigabit, 100Mbps results in: (1) lower electrical noise generation within the streamer (receiving audio stream from Ethernet) and (2) lower level of high-frequency noise conducted into the streamer via the Ethernet cable.

 

Within this past year or two, my friend and I have encountered so many counterintuitive tweaks for our digital audio systems we almost cannot count them with our bare hands. Adding more equipment into the audio chain is supposed to cause sonic degradation, but in a number of cases the SQ actually got better in specific aspects. My friend and I regularly attend orchestra concerts in a good hall to calibrate our ears, so good concert hall sound is how we gauge the listening experience, and is essentially our yardstick as opposed to the "Hi Fi" sound or some other measure. We would call a tweak beneficial only if it brings the sound closer to the live concert hall experience. I fully believe and acknowledge that what I would call better SQ other people may not. As usual, YMMV.

All of what you said makes really good sense. Thanks for your thoughts.

[austinpop]

<snip>

 

If the Mini is used as a renderer with the isolation tweaks & LPS, etc., the difference with Femto may be even smaller, and the audibility of this difference may depend on the rest of the system.

 

Exactly my thought too.

[dmormerod]

There is no hard and fast rule, so I cannot and will not make any blanket claim that streaming at 100Mbps can always deliver better SQ than at gigabit speed. The NIC does not perform "better" at 100Mbps, but gigabit speed is arguably overkill for audio streaming purposes. 24/384K audio has a ~18.4Mbps bit rate, and there is no currently known high-resolution audio format that gets bottlenecked by 100Mbps networking and resulting in dropouts, disruptions, etc.

 

As to why 100Mbps can deliver better SQ than gigabit (at least in certain setups), my theory is that compared to gigabit, 100Mbps results in: (1) lower electrical noise generation within the streamer (receiving audio stream from Ethernet) and (2) lower level of high-frequency noise conducted into the streamer via the Ethernet cable.

 

(1) lower electrical noise - is accomplished by the Ethernet PHY working with only two active pairs of differential signals over the cable, and also at 1 bit per symbol (rate = 125 Mega symbols per second). Gigabit uses all 4 differential signal pairs and at 2 bits per symbol, so the PHY has to work much harder in real time to recover a data stream at 1000Mbps (gigabit), and it is easy to picture more electrical noise generated by the Ethernet PHY (within the NIC chip) at the gigabit speed, perhaps not at 10X the noise level vs. 100Mbps, but a substantial difference nevertheless.

 

(2) lower level of high-frequency noise conducted by Ethernet cable - this is mainly due to 100Mbps (100Base-TX) working with only two differential signal pairs, compared to gigabit using all 4 pairs. Whatever the amount of high-frequency noise coupling onto these differential pairs, the Ethernet PHY on the receiving end should see less noise coming in over 2 pairs compared to 4 pairs.

 

Theories aside, my adoption of 100Mbps streaming for Aries Femto was the result of careful listening tests based on control experiments. Prior to this tweak I did not know what to expect, and whether the SQ would improve or degrade, but I have separately heard that the Sonore microRendu may not perform at its best when talking at gigabit, so I started becoming curious as to how the Ethernet link rate may affect the Aries Femto SQ, thus the experimentation at 100Mbps.

 

Within this past year or two, my friend and I have encountered so many counterintuitive tweaks for our digital audio systems we almost cannot count them with our bare hands. Adding more equipment into the audio chain is supposed to cause sonic degradation, but in a number of cases the SQ actually got better in specific aspects. My friend and I regularly attend orchestra concerts in a good hall to calibrate our ears, so good concert hall sound is how we gauge the listening experience, and is essentially our yardstick as opposed to the "Hi Fi" sound or some other measure. We would call a tweak beneficial only if it brings the sound closer to the live concert hall experience. I fully believe and acknowledge that what I would call better SQ other people may not. As usual, YMMV.

 

If you have a managed switch, such as the GS108T, can't you just set the max port speed on in the switch? Does this sound differently to the cable tweak?