Article: AURALiC ARIES G2 Review

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Schelol said:

I fear the forthcoming review of Bartok DAC will be of similar style...

 

@barrows: Sorry, I do not agree

Of all things in this world to have fear of, this isn’t the worst. 

[Schelol]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Of all things in this world to have fear of, this isn’t the worst. 

I am just in the market of such devices :-)

[barrows]

7 minutes ago, Schelol said:

I fear the forthcoming review of Bartok DAC will be of similar style...

 

@barrows: Sorry, I do not agree

With what?

 

Do you really make purchasing decisions based on what some reviewer says, in an entirely different system context to yours?  I can assure you that this is not the way to get the best sound in your system.

I read opinions of sound quality all over the Internet, from many different sources which are often in direct opposition to my own experience.  Even components which I know for fact from my own experience which really suck, are often praised by a reviewer or online prognosticator.  

Beware the opinions of others on sound quality.

 

My recommendation stands, listen in your system, sure, use specs, and features to reduce the number of the components to audition, but one must listen in their own system to have any valuable idea of the differences between components of similar price.

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, Schelol said:

I am just in the market of such devices ?

Ah, fun journey ahead. 

[jventer]

Now I am just waiting for the G2 to get a bit older so that I can afford it and buy a used unit somewhere. 

In the meantime I am very happy with my Aries Femto.

 

Thanks Chris @The Computer Audiophile, you are doing a great job with the reviews and the forum, much appreciated.

[Schelol]

22 hours ago, barrows said:

With what?

 

Do you really make purchasing decisions based on what some reviewer says, in an entirely different system context to yours?  I can assure you that this is not the way to get the best sound in your system.

I read opinions of sound quality all over the Internet, from many different sources which are often in direct opposition to my own experience.  Even components which I know for fact from my own experience which really suck, are often praised by a reviewer or online prognosticator.  

Beware the opinions of others on sound quality.

 

My recommendation stands, listen in your system, sure, use specs, and features to reduce the number of the components to audition, but one must listen in their own system to have any valuable idea of the differences between components of similar price.

Yes, I do base my purchasing decisions on the internet (reviews, etz.), ie at least by a quite a margin.

 

Why do I choose this approach? Just because I am money constrained and I do want to get the most out of my budget. If I took several units at home for a trial I could not ask for a good discount or buy instead on the used market (that would not be fair). Also think about losses from upgrades/changes.

 

Furthermore, it would be very very difficult for me to get all main competing devices in my home. Some brands are just not available in my home town. 

 

In my opinion, each device does play in a certain league, and can be graded accordingly. Maybe, my hifi system is not optimized based on RRP values (there might a better dac/cable suitable for my amp, etz.). However, I guess I did quite a good deal based on my investment. This is just a different approach...

[Bazinga]

I ordered the Vega G2 and should see it in the morning and I like it I will order the  Leo 

[Bazinga]

On 10/22/2018 at 4:23 PM, barrows said:

With what?

 

Do you really make purchasing decisions based on what some reviewer says, in an entirely different system context to yours?  I can assure you that this is not the way to get the best sound in your system.

I read opinions of sound quality all over the Internet, from many different sources which are often in direct opposition to my own experience.  Even components which I know for fact from my own experience which really suck, are often praised by a reviewer or online prognosticator.  

Beware the opinions of others on sound quality.

 

My recommendation stands, listen in your system, sure, use specs, and features to reduce the number of the components to audition, but one must listen in their own system to have any valuable idea of the differences between components of similar price.

That is right on !

[shinyc]

It was either Stereophile or TAS. One of the reviewers said that the guy who engineered the piece must be deaf. That was back in 1984, when I picked up MY first issue of such magazine. It was the most refreshing moment. I could not stop laughing (at Stereo Review or SteroSound or any other major publications). If I trust a reviewer enough, I can turn any subjective reviews into objective ones (at least to me). My two cents.

[LowMidHigh]

Greetings gents,

 

I received a G2 recently and the urge to share an opinionated monograph is upon me—tangent to the above discussions.

 

When it comes to digital output, the only factor that affects sound quality is timing, or lack thereof. As the “bits-are-bits” crowd asserts, a $30 Chromecast Audio and a $7,000 Lunim U1 do a perfectly good job in that regard. But, as we know, the clock accuracy and electronic “pollution,” that comes along for the ride, make a difference that cannot be overstated. To rephrase Chris, only when that jitter is aggressively suprassed can the "magic" be conjured up. 

 

Enter G2. I usually sidestep "Made in China"—I suppose some abysmal experiences till linger in my mind—but it was difficult to pass on Auralic. Dual LPS, galvanically isolated, each powering a different PBS, is a brilliant way to set off a dead-quiet operation (regrettably, that architecture is seldom deployed by the industry). Add a uni-chassis, effective in blocking EMI, so prevalent in our immediate surroundings, a pair of precision Femto clocks and sprung footspikes to absorb vibrations, the nemesis of oscillators, and you've got a remarkably robust foundation for a low jitter device. 

 

I was further intrigued by the novelty of the overall galvanic isolation. It's more than USB treatment, as some good people have characterized and dismissed offhandedly above. Nor should it be confused with the galvanic isolation between the dual LPS. On exhibition is a dual circuitry isolation, both for signal and ground, that blocks noise from traveling into the digital output stage. You can detect telltale signs of that mechanism in the marketing photos of the innards. Props for Auralic for going the extra mile.

 

Giving more credit where it's due, Auralic is one of the more transparent vendors in the industry. Visit dCS website, and you're curtly told that auto-clocking (whatever it means) and an LPS ensure low jitter in their bridge. So am I supposed to pony up $4,750 base on that vague description? Fine, I’ll think it over…To fine people of Lumin didn't bother responding to my technical inquiry at all. Way to go…It took numerous phone calls to Naim to pry out that the digital output stage is merely an afterthought with little consideration to jitter reduction. 

 

(BTW, I’d love to see some actual measurements around. Those are sorely absent throughout the audiophile industry). 

(BTW.2, vis-a-vis dCS: their bridge is a waste on any none-dCS gear. One pays for useless dual AES and dual SDIF (not to be confused with SPDIF), both in terms of hard-earned cash and increased electrical noise. 

 

Onward we march…As Chris contends in one forgoing post, SQ is foremost but not be all end all. UI standards, supported protocols and services, frequency of firmware and software updates, warranty and ease of getting service should all play a part in the purchasing decision. In that light, Auralic shines: a sleek and mature UI, frequent updated with attention to details, 3 years warranty and a local dealer who can service the streamer should that unfortunate need arise. 

 

To juxtapose, I had Pink Faun on my short list too. Their architecture is a traditional RPi, but the execution is a paragon of EE. Their devices are so brilliant, they should be come in crystal clear cases for all the world to see (although that would add some noise. Grrr!) However, dealing with LMS, amateurish plug-ins, a separate OS vendor and potentially costly 35kg round-trips of sensitive electronics to Holland, in case of hardware failure, dissuaded me.

 

Finally, some suggestions to improve the G2—at least in my mind.

 

• Switch from RCA to 75ohm BNC, and for a good reason: It's nearly impossible to source out a true 75ohm RCA connector. Thus, the mismatch in impedance could introduce jitter. If anyone is adamant on using an RCA terminated cable, they can mount a $2 adapter onto the BNC and be done with it. In that respect, I don't know why any serious audio companies would even bother with RCA. 

 

• Implement world-clock input, or 10M input to elevate the internal clocks to a higher plain.

 

• Add “Chromecast Built-in”. There are so many advantages, one of which is to turn scores of Android application compatible with the G2/G1 (without writing a single line of code).

 

• Separate the LPS x 2 from the G2. Thais is, power the G2 via an external box with 2 x DC outputs to mirror the existing design.

 

And excuse me while I drown in music…

 

[Superdad]

Very nice review @LowMidHigh!

[feelingears]

On 1/22/2019 at 10:02 PM, LowMidHigh said:

When it comes to digital output, the only factor that affects sound quality is timing, or lack thereof. As the “bits-are-bits” crowd asserts, a $30 Chromecast Audio and a $7,000 Lunim U1 do a perfectly good job in that regard. But, as we know, the clock accuracy and electronic “pollution,” that comes along for the ride, make a difference that cannot be overstated. To rephrase Chris, only when that jitter is aggressively suprassed can the "magic" be conjured up. 

• Switch from RCA to 75ohm BNC, and for a good reason: It's nearly impossible to source out a true 75ohm RCA connector. Thus, the mismatch in impedance could introduce jitter. If anyone is adamant on using an RCA terminated cable, they can mount a $2 adapter onto the BNC and be done with it. In that respect, I don't know why any serious audio companies would even bother with RCA. 

And excuse me while I drown in music…

 

 

+1 for BNC. I've been testing Transparent Cables lately and the only demo cables are RCA. Those are dang good FWIW, but I'll be buying BNC when I finally pony up. The converters are total rubbish–they strip away the magic you're talking about above. As Barrows says, use your ears. If you can't tell or don't care, you don't. No harm no foul.

 

Aries G2 without BNC unfortunately forces you down the AES path. Fortunately Transparent has a trade-in policy if one goes this "big box" streamer route.

 

But there's magic in them thar boxes. And cables. Crazy (magic) hobby! Back to music now that I've determined I have a "good" copy of Aja...

[sgr]

I purchased an Aries G2 about a month ago. I’m very impressed at the way it made my system come alive in a way that two custom PCs, NAAs, linear power supplies and lots of the tweaks written on this site else where. It makes my Lampi PAC DAC sing in ways none of my menagerie of tweaks and small boxes ever did. 

 

The noise floor is amazingly low. With some of the other popular streamers discussed on this site I was always turning my Dude preamp at close to the highest levels possible according to the attenuator. Now I barely turn the Dude up to 11 o’clock and the sound is still brilliant, full, with bass that still shakes the room even between 60-70 dB according to apps on my iPhone. I’ve never encountered anything like it with any source component I’ve had in my system. 

 

And the most amazing? It works every time I turn my PAC DAC on. No more fiddling with the little boxes’ connections, software, connecting to my

Ethernet system, or rude messages from ROON like “transport not found”. It even updates itself. And the updates that I've downloaded made my system sound even better. 

 

I’ve spent a fortune in money and time on player software and updates that don’t always work, play nice with each other and trying to find which of the 1000s of combinations and permutations that drive one batty while deciding which combo is best. I’m not saying you can’t get great sound with all the PC software and paraphernalia you can. But at what cost to pocketbook, time, and sanity?   

 

I wish I’d bought one months ago. I’ll probably audition the Auralic Sirius as well. 

[smodtactical]

sgr did you compare it to any other dedicated streamers?

[sgr]

I’ve owned the Ultra and Micro Rendus.  The Aries G2 is superior to both, but not a fair comparison as the Airies is much more expensive. 

Those are the only streamers I’ve compared it to not built by Auralic. 
 

The Airies G2 is superior to the Airies Femto which comes as no surprise.  
 

I’d guess the a comparable Inuos model and Aurender would give it some competition. Probably others as well. After hearing the Airies I just didn’t need to look further. 

[honeymustardsteve]

Does anyone know how the clock works on the USB given that USB dacs generally control the timing, rather than the source?

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 minutes ago, honeymustardsteve said:

Does anyone know how the clock works on the USB given that USB dacs generally control the timing, rather than the source?

If the DAC is asynchronous, then the DAC controls clocking. 

[honeymustardsteve]

12 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

If the DAC is asynchronous, then the DAC controls clocking. 

agreed, but i was wondering what was the point of auralic creating a clock for the usb output if it isn't used given most, if not all high end usb dacs would have an asychronous connection

[honeymustardsteve]

Got an official response stating that the dac ignores the clock on the USB, which generally means it is a useless feature unless you had a really old USB dac that wasn’t asynchronous...

[barrows]

23 minutes ago, honeymustardsteve said:

Got an official response stating that the dac ignores the clock on the USB, which generally means it is a useless feature unless you had a really old USB dac that wasn’t asynchronous...

OK, there is some mis-information here.  For USB audio, the audio clocks (that is the clock(s) which are used to clock the data stream out of the USB receiver in the DAC, and the used as the clocks to clock that same data into the DAC's conversion stage) are in the DAC.  But, the USB controller chips, which refers to the USB hub chip inside the G2, and the USB receiver chip (often XMOS) inside the DAC requires their own separate clock to control their operations.  This USB clock is unrelated to the audio clock(s) and this clock only controls the operations of the USB chips.  

While the audio clock(s) inside the DAC are the most important clocks for sound quality in terms of the actual D to A conversion (typical audio jitter), in turns out that the performance of the USB clock also does matter (also so does the separate clock which controls the Ethernet processors and data streams).  To summarize: the USB clock does matter, as does the Ethernet clock, so a Renderer which uses higher performance clocks for these parts will have an advantage over one which does not.

Just remember that all digital processor chips (computer processors, USB hub chips, Ethernet processor chips and switch chips, any DSP chip, any microprocessor of any type) have their own clock which they reference, and these clocks may matter for audio performance of the entire chain of the digital data delivery system.

[honeymustardsteve]

8 minutes ago, barrows said:

OK, there is some mis-information here.  For USB audio, the audio clocks (that is the clock(s) which are used to clock the data stream out of the USB receiver in the DAC, and the used as the clocks to clock that same data into the DAC conversions stage) are in the DAC.  But, the USB controller chips, which refers to the USB hub chip inside the G2, and the USB receiver chip (often XMOS) inside the DAC requires their own separate clock to control their operations.  This USB clock is unrelated to the audio clock(s) and this clock only controls the operations of the USB chips.  

While the audio clock(s) inside the DAC are the most important clocks for sound quality in terms of the actual D to A conversion (typical audio jitter), in turns out that the performance of the USB clock also does matter (also so does the separate clock which controls the Ethernet processors and data streams).  To summarize: the USB clock does matter, as does the Ethernet clock, so a Renderer which uses higher performance clocks for these parts will have an advantage.

Just remember that all digital processor chips (computer processors, USB hub chips, Ethernet processor chips and switch chips, any DSP chip, any microprocessor of any type) has its own clock which it references, and these clocks may matter for audio performance of the entire chain of the digital data delivery system.

 

interesting

 

for clarity, i asked: "how does the usb femto clock work on the usb output of the aries" and they said the dac ignores the timing on the aries through usb so i may find better success with AES, but should try both

[barrows]

18 minutes ago, honeymustardsteve said:

 

interesting

 

for clarity, i asked: "how does the usb femto clock work on the usb output of the aries" and they said the dac ignores the timing on the aries through usb so i may find better success with AES, but should try both

Sure, always good advice to try both.  Some DACs, although becoming more rare these days, have better performance through their AES input than through USB.  Although in general, if each input is implemented "perfectly" USB does have technical advantages.  This is more about what input on the DAC is best, and not what output on the G2 is best.  At the price level of the G2 I would hope (and expect) that both its USB output and its AES output are equally superb. 

[dbastin]

On 10/20/2018 at 8:07 AM, Superdad said:

It is clear that Auralic put some focus on improving the USB output of this piece--since that how many (most) people will be attaching it to a DAC.  In one of the photos you took, it is clear that they derive their DAC-intented USB output by going XMOS > SMSC hub chip > Silanna galvanic isolator chip > further unknown (under white strips) USB processor (most likely another hub chip), with reasonably low-jitter clock.

It's like a built-in ISO REGEN or iGalvanic.  Nice. 

 

Someday someone is going to do this with the ethernet RJ45, like EtherRegen built in.  Auralic have done a very good job indeed with wifi tokeep network noise out.

[zerung]

For Posterity

A no brainer is to upgrade the LPS in the Auralic to one from Hoer-Wege.

The upgrades kicks in slowly, but drives the level to few notch higher!

Wonder cost-performance ratio!