Sonore Signature Rendu SE Deluxe

[Steve Bruzonsky]

3 hours ago, Mike Rubin said:

 

Hobnobbing with the bigwigs, I see!

 

Not THAT Don Henley! There is another one who follows this forum! 😍😜😃

[Superdad]

16 hours ago, Steve Bruzonsky said:

 

Not THAT Don Henley! There is another one who follows this forum! 😍😜😃

 

There is also a Richard Gere here, but he is not THAT one either. 

[vortecjr]

2 hours ago, Superdad said:

 

There is also a Richard Gere here, but he is not THAT one either. 

Are there no famous people here:)

[Superdad]

2 hours ago, vortecjr said:

Are there no famous people here:)

 

Well Jesus is among us...

[vortecjr]

11 hours ago, Superdad said:

 

Well Jesus is among us...

There you go...

[skatbelt]

19 hours ago, vortecjr said:

Are there no famous people here:)

 

What about @George Hincapie? Very famous here in cycling-loving Europe!

[vortecjr]

On 6/16/2019 at 6:18 PM, skatbelt said:

 

What about @George Hincapie? Very famous here in cycling-loving Europe!

Is he the real deal!

[Steve Bruzonsky]

This thread has really gone off kilter just because I sold my Signature Rendu SE Tier 3 Optical to A Don Henley! WOW!

 

I really did love my Rendu. But now upgrading/renovating my theatre with a 9.4.13 system, Trinnov Altitude 32 (24 Channel) ROON Ready via ethernet, 

and a bit of simplification, and a bit more $$ to pay for all the crapola, does  help. Yet for a strictly 2 channel system with a USB DAC (or a Berkeley Audio DAC with a Berkeley Audio or other USB to digital converter), the Rendu SE optical remains the KING of the HILL! 

[drdkey]

Tonight I am sitting here in amazement! I have been burning in the OM and the Optical Sig Rendu SE for 48 hours and tonight I sat down to listen and I am in heaven! The OM and OSigRendu SE are feeding a Chord M scaler and Chord Dave. The music is relaxed and so enjoyable! Previously, I had a microRendu which is really good but this is a great enhancement  to my system. There is definitely a little more bass which seems appropriate and not artificial. I am listening to live Robert Cray tonight and you can close your eyes and spatially hear the band members where they should be! Yes, I can close my eyes and I am there! Earlier I was listening to some Sonny Rollins and the clarity was intense as you could hear him purse his lips on the mouthpiece of his saxophone! 

This is a great addition to my system  and I want to thank everyone at Sonore for a job well done!

Cheers!

[vortecjr]

6 hours ago, drdkey said:

Tonight I am sitting here in amazement! I have been burning in the OM and the Optical Sig Rendu SE for 48 hours and tonight I sat down to listen and I am in heaven! The OM and OSigRendu SE are feeding a Chord M scaler and Chord Dave. The music is relaxed and so enjoyable! Previously, I had a microRendu which is really good but this is a great enhancement  to my system. There is definitely a little more bass which seems appropriate and not artificial. I am listening to live Robert Cray tonight and you can close your eyes and spatially hear the band members where they should be! Yes, I can close my eyes and I am there! Earlier I was listening to some Sonny Rollins and the clarity was intense as you could hear him purse his lips on the mouthpiece of his saxophone! 

This is a great addition to my system  and I want to thank everyone at Sonore for a job well done!

Cheers!

Thank you for posting this. Enjoy!

[skatbelt]

On 6/16/2019 at 6:25 PM, vortecjr said:

Is he the real deal!

 

Only he can tell.

[yyz]

Is it possible to do MQA unfolding using the Signature Rendu SE? 

 

I am considering a Denafrips Terminator (DT) DAC and it does not do MQA so I was told to look for a streamer that can unfold MQA and then feed it into the DT.

[barrows]

1 hour ago, yyz said:

Is it possible to do MQA unfolding using the Signature Rendu SE? 

 

I am considering a Denafrips Terminator (DT) DAC and it does not do MQA so I was told to look for a streamer that can unfold MQA and then feed it into the DT.

The Rendu products do not do MQA, but it easy to do the first "unfold" of MQA by one's choice of playback software.  For example both Roon and Audirvana can do the first unfold of MQA encoded files, and both of these softwares are entirely compatible with the Rendu Series products (and are recommended softwares).

[yyz]

I do use ROON. Would I be getting the full sonic benefit (if any) of MQA by using ROON MQA unfolding as opposed to a MQA capable DAC such as a MyTek? I ask because I am going to buy a new DAC (and system) and figured MQA is something I should consider since I use TIDAL. 

[barrows]

18 minutes ago, yyz said:

I do use ROON. Would I be getting the full sonic benefit (if any) of MQA by using ROON MQA unfolding as opposed to a MQA capable DAC such as a MyTek? I ask because I am going to buy a new DAC (and system) and figured MQA is something I should consider since I use TIDAL. 

The MQA folks only allow what is called a "partial unfold" in software, and the "full unfold" can only happen if your DAC is MQA capable in its hardware.  In reality what this means is this:

 

1. The MQA process starts with a 24/96 source file.

 

2.  The so called "partial unfold" actually is a full unfold, as it results in a 24/96 file for playback.

 

3.  The so called "full unfold" (only available in a MQA capable DAC) results in a 24/192 file-but this is just an upsampling step using the MQA filter.  So depending on how you view upsampling, and the MQA filter itself, it may be of no sonic advantage, or it may even be detriment.  So, full unfold really means upsampling to 24/192 using the MQA specific filter: there is nothing about this upsampling step that makes it inherently better than the upsampling already incorporated in many DACs, and one has many choices for how and where they might apply an upsampling step.  MQA is just one, specific, type of upsampling: in practice it is just one possible choice, and not some kind of magical sonic enhancer. 

 

So the partial unfold available in software gets you everything that was in the original file.

 

Personally, I have no love for MQA and believe it is a "solution" searching for a "problem".  Suffice it to say, that MQA holds no advantage for me, as I do not even like the sound of highly leaky, very slow rolloff filters as used in the MQA oversampling step.  But this is subjective, of course, some people might like it... but it is not anything special or magical, and very similar upsampling can be accomplished without all the expense and proprietary nature of incorporating MQA (in a DAC...)

[yyz]

3 minutes ago, barrows said:

The MQA folks only allow what is called a "partial unfold" in software, and the "full unfold" can only happen if your DAC is MQA capable in its hardware.  In reality what this means is this:

 

1. The MQA process starts with a 24/96 source file.

 

2.  The so called "partial unfold" actually is a full unfold, as it results in a 24/96 file for playback.

 

3.  The so called "full unfold" (only available in a MQA capable DAC) results in a 24/192 file-but this is just an upsampling step using the MQA filter.  So depending on how you view upsampling, and the MQA filter itself, it may be of no sonic advantage, or it may even be detriment.  So, full unfold really means upsampling to 24/192 using the MQA specific filter: there is nothing about this upsampling step that makes it inherently better than the upsampling already incorporated in many DACs, and one has many choices for how and where they might apply an upsampling step.  MQA is just one, specific, type of upsampling: in practice it is just one possible choice, and not some kind of magical sonic enhancer. 

 

So the partial unfold available in software gets you everything that was in the original file.

 

Personally, I have no love for MQA and believe it is a "solution" searching for a "problem".  Suffice it to say, that MQA holds no advantage for me, as I do not even like the sound of highly leaky, very slow rolloff filters as used in the MQA oversampling step.  But this is subjective, of course, some people might like it... but it is not anything special or magical, and very similar upsampling can be accomplished without all the expense and proprietary nature of incorporating MQA (in a DAC...)

 

Thank you. That was such a clear explanation.

[Puma Cat]

3 hours ago, barrows said:

The MQA folks only allow what is called a "partial unfold" in software, and the "full unfold" can only happen if your DAC is MQA capable in its hardware.  In reality what this means is this:

 

1. The MQA process starts with a 24/96 source file.

 

2.  The so called "partial unfold" actually is a full unfold, as it results in a 24/96 file for playback.

 

3.  The so called "full unfold" (only available in a MQA capable DAC) results in a 24/192 file-but this is just an upsampling step using the MQA filter.  So depending on how you view upsampling, and the MQA filter itself, it may be of no sonic advantage, or it may even be detriment.  So, full unfold really means upsampling to 24/192 using the MQA specific filter: there is nothing about this upsampling step that makes it inherently better than the upsampling already incorporated in many DACs, and one has many choices for how and where they might apply an upsampling step.  MQA is just one, specific, type of upsampling: in practice it is just one possible choice, and not some kind of magical sonic enhancer. 

 

So the partial unfold available in software gets you everything that was in the original file.

 

Personally, I have no love for MQA and believe it is a "solution" searching for a "problem".  Suffice it to say, that MQA holds no advantage for me, as I do not even like the sound of highly leaky, very slow rolloff filters as used in the MQA oversampling step.  But this is subjective, of course, some people might like it... but it is not anything special or magical, and very similar upsampling can be accomplished without all the expense and proprietary nature of incorporating MQA (in a DAC...)

I'm with LINN and Schiit on MQA; this is a licensing scheme for Meridian to continually make money by taking a cut at virtually every step of the process. And yet another reason to goad audiophiles into buying the same content over and over and over again, e.g. Kind of Blue, Famous Blue Raincoat, etc, for the 5th time: LP, CD, SACD, DSD 512K,  and now, MQA. 

 

The best-sounding digital content I have, overall and on average, are 16/44 XRCDs...mastered by Alan Yoshida.  E.g, the amazing AudiWave Blue Note XRCD24 releases. I read a blurb the other day that if Alan Yoshida had mastered every CD ever released, we would have never needed HD-DVD, DVD-Audio, SACD, DSD, etc. 

 

I agree. 

 

Link to the article by LINN: https://www.linn.co.uk/blog/mqa-is-bad-for-music

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[vortecjr]

8 hours ago, barrows said:

The MQA folks only allow what is called a "partial unfold" in software, and the "full unfold" can only happen if your DAC is MQA capable in its hardware.  In reality what this means is this:

 

1. The MQA process starts with a 24/96 source file.

 

2.  The so called "partial unfold" actually is a full unfold, as it results in a 24/96 file for playback.

 

3.  The so called "full unfold" (only available in a MQA capable DAC) results in a 24/192 file-but this is just an upsampling step using the MQA filter.  So depending on how you view upsampling, and the MQA filter itself, it may be of no sonic advantage, or it may even be detriment.  So, full unfold really means upsampling to 24/192 using the MQA specific filter: there is nothing about this upsampling step that makes it inherently better than the upsampling already incorporated in many DACs, and one has many choices for how and where they might apply an upsampling step.  MQA is just one, specific, type of upsampling: in practice it is just one possible choice, and not some kind of magical sonic enhancer. 

 

So the partial unfold available in software gets you everything that was in the original file.

 

Personally, I have no love for MQA and believe it is a "solution" searching for a "problem".  Suffice it to say, that MQA holds no advantage for me, as I do not even like the sound of highly leaky, very slow rolloff filters as used in the MQA oversampling step.  But this is subjective, of course, some people might like it... but it is not anything special or magical, and very similar upsampling can be accomplished without all the expense and proprietary nature of incorporating MQA (in a DAC...)

Personally, I would just up sample in the server and call it a day. 

[yyz]

19 hours ago, vortecjr said:

Personally, I would just up sample in the server and call it a day. 

I am doing that now with the old microRendu. All paths are leading me to upgrade this to the SystemOptique with a Signiture Rendu SE. I have to figure out which DAC to get from likely one of the following:

 

- Denafrips Terminator 

- Mola Mola Tambaqui (a Sonore Signiture Rendu MAYBE not needed)

- Lumin X1  or T2 (in which case a Sonore Signiture Rendu IS not needed)

 

Thanks for the info you guys have posted, it has helped a lot.

[barrows]

New review up on the Signature Rendu SEoptical and opticalModule here:

 

https://www.dagogo.com/audio-blast-sonore-systemoptique-signature-rendu-se/

[barrows]

On 6/28/2019 at 8:23 AM, yyz said:

I am doing that now with the old microRendu. All paths are leading me to upgrade this to the SystemOptique with a Signiture Rendu SE. I have to figure out which DAC to get from likely one of the following:

 

- Denafrips Terminator 

- Mola Mola Tambaqui (a Sonore Signiture Rendu MAYBE not needed)

- Lumin X1  or T2 (in which case a Sonore Signiture Rendu IS not needed)

 

Thanks for the info you guys have posted, it has helped a lot.

Hey, at those price points for DACs you might want to consider the Bricasti M21 as well.  I have one of these here right now (this is on loan from Bricasti for the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest) and it is an exceptional DAC.  I am also very impressed by the build quality.  Pictures do not do this DAC justice, and the casework is very high quality machined from large slabs of aluminum and impeccably finished.  Of course the sound is what matters most, and it is very impressive.  This DAC features both a R2R ladder DAC for PCM, and a p[roprietary 1 bit conversion path for DSD (and a Delta Sigma chip from AD if you prefer), as well as complete dual mono construction, with sophisticated power supplies, powerful output stage, and high quality analog volume control.

We will be running this DAC at RMAF, with the Signature Rendu SEoptical feeding it via USB, and the Bricasti M25 stereo power amp.

[barrows]

Wow, another new review of the Signature Rendu SEoptical from the good folks at Positive Feedback.  

 

https://positive-feedback.com/reviews/hardware-reviews/sonore-signature-rendu-se-system-optique/

 

I love this quote:

 

"...the Signature Rendu SE takes the entire optical streaming experience and hot-rods it to a level that's an audiophile's dream."

[cat6man]

On 8/24/2019 at 4:02 PM, barrows said:

New review up on the Signature Rendu SEoptical and opticalModule here:

 

https://www.dagogo.com/audio-blast-sonore-systemoptique-signature-rendu-se/

 

Hi Barrows/Jesus/John

 

I found something 'odd' (at least to me) in this review that I have not seen previously (quoted below).

Can you comment/explain please?

In your opinion, how does optical cable length (or type--single mode/multimode) impact sound quality?

 

(start dagogo quote)

The optical cable that SONORE recommends is offered on their website in a 1–meter length. I went to the website of S* Cable, the OEM which also makes serious optical cables for military and industrial applications, and bought my own cables in the 10–meter and 3–meter lengths. It took a few weeks to receive them, as it seems S* gets a lot of specialty orders. The systemOptique uses a discrete (duplex) L/R pair of optical cables for each channel. The cable is thin and quite flexible, but you had better watch that you don’t crimp it or pierce it if running it through a tangle of wires and gear.

Adrian indicated that the length of the optical cable influences the intensity of the sound. He said it has an affect similar to attenuation, and as such the 3m cable might be too intense. I apologize that with my hectic schedule I did not yet compare the different lengths of optical cables, but I have no reason to doubt Adrian’s guidance, as he has been spot on with all other descriptions of SONORE and SMG products’ performance.

(end dagogo quote)

[barrows]

19 minutes ago, cat6man said:

I found something 'odd' (at least to me) in this review that I have not seen previously (quoted below).

Can you comment/explain please?

I would suggest that indeed this is weird.  I have not found this to be the case, and the official word from Sonore is that optical fiber cable length does not matter for sound quality (at least up to a kilometer!).

Although I would always recommend that folks run the optical cable for the longest run, as it is immune to interferences and signal degradation over much longer distances than copper based Ethernet.

[Superdad]

1 hour ago, cat6man said:

The systemOptique uses a discrete (duplex) L/R pair of optical cables for each channel.

 

...the length of the optical cable influences the intensity of the sound. He said it has an affect similar to attenuation, and as such the 3m cable might be too intense.

 

I have seen reviewers write some wacky things over the years, but the above two quoted points are simply so wrong it's laughable (windmills causing cancer is almost more plausible. )  The two fibers of an optical interface have ZERO to do with left/right audio channels.  The entire Ethernet protocol knows nothing of audio channels or sample rates.  Good grief...