Innuos Zenith Mk3 or OpticalRendu + separate server?

[matthias]

5 hours ago, barrows said:

Consider, if you use an optical Network connection to a Renderer (or DAC with an optical input), there really is no reason to purchase an expensive "audiophile" server, as the optical connection isolates the Renderer from noise.  Just make sure you place the server (or NAS, whatever) away for the audio system and plugged into a different AC line form the audio system.

 

Basically wrong in my view.

With a better server you get a better signal and less noise. It is right that with something like an opticalRendu you have even less noise but the quality of the incoming signal is determined by the server. So the quality of the server is always important. Source first rules.

 

Matt

[matthias]

1 hour ago, Blackmorec said:

Roughly a year ago I set out to establish a system for local and remote streaming from CD rips and  Quboz.  I intended to use Roon as I valued its ability to manage libraries and find new music. After a lot of evaluation I decided on the Zenith Mk2 but the SE was announced just before I ordered so that’s what I bought. 

The system arrived and within a few hours was producing magic, basically the best sound quality I’d ever heard. The installation was entirely straightforward, the Roon integration is absolutely solid and the OS is robust and very easy to use. 

 

The Zenith’s power supply is a major contributor to its great sound and the designers have paid a lot of attention to EMI and vibration control so both noise and jitter seem to be very low.

 

I found that plugging the Zenith into my system’s dedicated mains supply benefitted SQ, but plugging in another device’s SMPS had a seriously deleterious effect so I concluded that the Zenith was injecting very little noise to disturb the D to A conversion. 

 

The Quboz integration is seamless and response times virtually as fast as a local GUI when network  performance is adequate. 

 

In the year I’ve been using the Zenith the only single issue I’ve had was the loss of the entire internet connection during an electrical storm, otherwise not a single glitch

 

 

What happened musically going from the SE to the Statement?

Thanks

 

Matt

[matthias]

33 minutes ago, matthias said:

 

What happened musically going from the SE to the Statement?

Thanks

 

Matt

@Blackmorec

I have already seen your answer here:

 

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/a-new-star-in-2019-innuos-statement-server.27184/page-12#post-558663

 

Thanks

 

Matt

 

[matthias]

1 hour ago, barrows said:

Perhaps wrong in your view, but did you try it?

The entire reason to go to an optical Network solution is that it provides complete isolation from the upstream gear.  The "quality" of the upstream signal does not matter (unless it is so bad that you have lost bits, which does not happen on Ethernet transmissions).  An optical connection does not transmit ANY noise from the upstream gear to the endpoint, it cannot.

What does matter is the quality of the signal as it is presented to the DAC, and in this case, yes, the source does matter, but the source is the Renderer, not the computer on the other side of the optical isolation.

This is the entire reason to go with an optical Ethernet based solution.  You can run any type of computer to serve the files, and it will not matter one bit.  Just make sure that upstream computer gear is well isolated on the AC side from the audio system (plug it into a different circuit from the audio system, preferably on the opposite phase).

I really would hope that you are right, I buy a MBP, set it up with an opticalRendu and get the same SQ as with an Innuos Statement. But I bet that the opticalRendu will show exactly differences between upstream servers, their OS, their software players, their settings, their power supplies, maybe even more than the ultraRendu.

We will see or better hear.

 

Matt

[matthias]

5 minutes ago, BigAlMc said:

No. This is where we fundamentally disagree. The server matters and all this 'perfect isolation' malarkey is, at best, hyperbolae.

 

Exactly.

 

Matt

[matthias]

1 hour ago, barrows said:

Try any audiophile server on the other end, and then try a basic laptop.  See if you hear a difference...

 

Do you then get the SQ of the audiophile server or the SQ of the laptop?

 

Matt

[matthias]

32 minutes ago, barrows said:

Now, what software you run the system at will change the sound, because different software changes how the opticalRendu works internally: for example: if you run ROON, it uses the RAAT protocol and the opticalRendu will be running as a RAAT endpoint, and so this will sound (a bit) different from if you run MiniMserver which uses DLNA protocol, or if you use HQPlayer and run the opticalRendu as a NAA device-so these Network transport differences for different player softwares will sound different, because the opticalRendu is running differently for each one.

Additionally, if you are doing things like oversampling in the server, or using any other DSP functions, then of course there are differences.

But hardware differences on the upstream side of the optical connection will not matter (unless something is terribly, terribly wrong and you are dropping bits or something, but this is very, very unlikely). 

You are walking on very thin ice. Software upstream matters, but hardware not? Are you serious? Maybe you know better than me that you can not separate them in their influence on music. An how can a device play the shades of music when it can not show differences in hardware which have their impact on music?

 

Matt

[matthias]

31 minutes ago, barrows said:

 I would suggest (but realize it will fall on many deaf ears) that one would be much better off implementing optical isolation and using a relatively generic upstream computer as the file server (or just a NAS if one has no need for DSP/oversampling in software) and then applying the thousands of dollars saved on better loudspeakers, where big improvements really can be realized. 

 

Ivor Tiefenbrun of Linn has proven that this is a bad idea. The quality of the source determines the enjoyment and quality you get from music and not the quality of the speakers. Source first rules.

 

Matt

[matthias]

3 minutes ago, barrows said:

The software upstream only matters because of how the Renderer has to operate to accommodate the network protocol in use.  What the Renderer is doing is what makes the sound quality differences.  That is: if the server (upstream) is using ROON, then the Renderer also has to use its RAAT protocols, and using these protocols in the Renderer results in different sound quality than if the Renderer is using DLNA (for say, miniMserver, or Squeezelite, etc.).  Again, I stress, it is what is going on in the Renderer which determines the sound quality.

 

Before Roon you used Audirvana. 

What happens when you change the izotope or sox settings in Audirvana? Nothing to do with your Sonore renderer, it happens long before the signal reaches the opticalRendu. Not audible? 

 

Matt

[matthias]

9 minutes ago, barrows said:

Another detail: The upstream server hardware does not matter, because it makes no difference anymore to the Renderer: In a direct connected set up (Server-USB-DAC) it is the noise signature of the hardware (server box and its power supplies) which comes over to the DAC via USB which makes for the sound quality differences.  With the optical Ethernet connection from server to DAC, that noise signature is no longer present.

 

So per your definition the source is the device which connects directly to the DAC, either the server or the renderer and this device determines the SQ.

So we can try what sounds better, a DAC connected to a Sonore or a Innuos for example. When it sounds better, it is better.

 

Matt

[matthias]

49 minutes ago, BigAlMc said:

The Zenith Ethernet sounded better. Others have reported similarly.

 

Yes, in his review of the Innuos Statement Jason Kennedy reported the same.

Further he found that the SQ was even higher when the Statement was used as a pure server with ethernet out into either a Naim or Auralic G2 streamer.

 

Matt

[matthias]

1 hour ago, Blackmorec said:

The USB output of the Zenith direct into my DAC provided the absolute best sound I’ve every heard from digital.

 

Did you compare USB output to Ethernet output of your Statement into your Devialet?

Thanks

 

Matt

[matthias]

2 hours ago, barrows said:

My only comments in this thread refer to the opticalRendu and Signature Rendu optical.  Both products which you could not possibly have any experience with.  While wired (say CAT 6A) Ethernet connections do allow some noise to couple through ( while still providing a great deal of isolation), optical Ethernet connection is a different thing entirely.  When one uses an optical Ethernet connection one does not "introduce" any noise to downstream components, any noise from the upstream server, router, switches, modems, whatever, does not travel on the optical connection.

 

Basically it is the same with WiFi, the conversion from one medium to another and back. Noise is blocked in both cases. In both cases the signal integrity depends on how perfect these double conversions are performed. When these conversions are perfect, one gets the same signal minus the blocked noise as before the double conversion. 

In both cases a better source upstream will generate a better signal. The better signal will be present after the double conversion. Period.

 

Matt

[matthias]

4 hours ago, barrows said:

I am curious as to what the above means: what constitutes this "better signal" which you speak of?  What do you think is being lost by a conversion which is not "better"?

And how does this "better signal" result in a sound quality improvement, as here I am making the assumption that this is what are implying, right?

Additionally: what are the implications for "signals" streamed from the Internet, such as Tidal and Qobuz?  Certainly if this "signal", "problem" is actually a real thing which results in sound quality degradation, the fact that Tidal and Qobuz are not using "audiophile" servers to send their signals must be a big problem, right, especially considering that their "signals" are traveling through many different devices on the way to our homes.

 

Let me suggest to read this thread for this topic:

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/taiko-audio-sgm-extreme-the-crème-de-la-crème.27433/

 

I hope I can listen to it at HIGH END 2019 in Munich.

 

This post might be very interesting for you too:

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/taiko-audio-sgm-extreme-the-crème-de-la-crème.27433/page-6#post-557413

 

BTW, Taiko Audio reported that in the Netherlands streaming from Tidal sounds better than local files from a NAS while in the US it is the contrary.......

 

Matt

[matthias]

49 minutes ago, soares said:

Just a quick question that probably does not make any sense.

Will there be any value added in using a Zenith MKII with a opticalrendu/ultrarendu before the DAC?

Thank you guys.   

 

 Jason Kennedy in his review of the Statement in The Ear.net reported that adding a streamer before the DAC is superior to a direct DAC connection to the Innuos.

 

Matt

[matthias]

12 minutes ago, barrows said:

OK, I totally agree with this statement!  Hurray, we can agree on something.  The point being here, that the engineering of the Renderer (endpoint) is completely critical here: this is the entire reason for the existence of Sonore Renderers, to provide the absolute lowest noise, and highest signal integrity to the DAC.  The electrical interference from the upstream components is not transmitted to the endpoint via optical fiber, so the only electrical noise and signal integrity which matters (leaving aside the clock issues for the moment) is that which is produced by the Renderer.

John Swenson has gone to extreme lengths to reduce the output noise of the Renderer to the lowest possible levels, and to provide the highest signal integrity for the USB output.

 

The renderer should provide the highest signal integrity for the DAC as the server should do for the renderer.

 

Matt

[matthias]

15 minutes ago, barrows said:

Disagree.  Ethernet and USB are completely different transmission protocols and not subject to the same problems.  Lumping them together like this is in error.

 

Disagree.

Has nothing to do with transmission protocols, it is the signal integrity and the source first principle what matters.

The upstream component determines the signal integrity for the downstream component.

 

Matt

[matthias]

3 minutes ago, barrows said:

Just saying something like this does not make it so.  As you appear to have some kind of knowledge that I am entirely unaware of please explain to me how the server, in an optical Ethernet connected system, can "improve" the signal such that it sounds better.  What is the mechanism at work here?

 

In reality, it has everything to do with transmission protocols, hence why USB is good for 15-20 feet or so, and optical Ethernet can travel for miles and miles without issues.

 

Simply because the server delivers the signal to the renderer und is upstream to it. 

Please explain to me that the server does not provide signal integrity for the renderer.

 

Matt

[matthias]

17 minutes ago, barrows said:

The point is that the signal integrity is already fine and cause no problems for the Renderer, either from a simple consumer NAS, or an ordinary computer.  There is nothing about an "audiophile" server which makes any difference to the Renderer.

 

Nothing more than a personal claim without any evidence.

It is the same if I would say the signal integrity in all renderers is already fine and cause no problems for the DAC, either from a simple RPi or from a Sonore opticalRendu. There is nothing about an "audiophile" renderer which makes any difference to the DAC.

 

Matt

 

[matthias]

7 minutes ago, barrows said:

It is not the same, problems with USB are well documented and very well understood from a technical standpoint.  There is no such evidence of problems which produce sonic degradation in optical Ethernet transmission.  And, the electrical isolation provided by optical Ethernet transmission makes noise issues entirely irrelevant.  This is not just opinion or speculation, it is technical fact.

I would suggest that you Google:

 

electrical noise immunity of optical fiber Ethernet transmission

 

and read up on some technical papers.

 

I have already done so.

 

The optical Ethernet transmission is nothing more or less than a connection between two digital devices, say between a server and a renderer. You can even extend optical transmission between the renderer and the DAC with an optical USB transmission.

The task of the connection is to preserve signal integrity, from server to renderer and from renderer to DAC. The server is more important than the renderer and the renderer more important than the DAC. Source first rules.

 

Matt

 

 

 

 

[matthias]

50 minutes ago, vortecjr said:

The data shows that with a clean power supply or balanced outputs on the DAC that the microRendu is not a noise bottleneck in a system. This is why I have no reservations recommending a microRendu for any system at any price point over an expensive server. 

 

This is not a valid conclusion in my view.

 

Matt

[matthias]

Just a few words about streaming from Qobuz and Tidal.

You have no influence on the incoming quality but you can optimise your home network according to the Source First principle.

One of the best posts I came across on this topic is from @Blackmorec written on WBF:

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/a-new-star-in-2019-innuos-statement-server.27184/page-9#post-555170

 

Matt

[matthias]

1 hour ago, vortecjr said:

For example a linear supply on a switch made no change at the output of the DAC. 

 

Can you elaborate further?

No measured change at the output of the DAC?

What about listening through speakers/HP?

Thanks

 

Matt