Innuos Zenith Mk3 or OpticalRendu + separate server?

[barrows]

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.

[barrows]

9 hours ago, BigAlMc said:

@barrows you should state your affiliation here because given you work for Sonore your advice isn't exactly impartial.

It is clearly stated in my Signature.  

 

My advice here was general, and completely unrelated to Sonore.  Also the original topic does refer to, and ask about, Sonore product.

[barrows]

9 hours ago, matthias said:

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.

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).

[barrows]

3 minutes ago, BigAlMc said:

I stand by my impartiality comment though. My experience is that everything matters. So whilst I hope the Optical Rendu is a great product and am a fan of Sonore, I'm not convinced that you can state with any certainty that it renders (pardon the pun) the server as irrelevant.

Even though the OP mentioned Sonore product specifically, I tried to keep my comments general RE optical connections, as there are other optical solutions available (like the Lumin's X-1, for example).

The fact is that optical isolation is absolute, there is no middle ground here, as long as the upstream gear is far away enough to not interfere with the audio system from airborne RFI, you will have no issues, no interference will come over the optical cable, it just cannot.

Anyone can test this with a couple of FMCs and a single optical cable.  Try any audiophile server on the other end, and then try a basic laptop.  See if you hear a difference...

 

While opinions are nice, there are some actual facts here-optical connections work so well because they are not subject to electrical interference the way electrical wiring is, this just a fact.  It is why optical is the choice for long distance, high rate data transmission.

 

I do not stream from Internet based music sources (Tidal, Qobuz, etc), but for those who do: do you suspect the server(s) these companies are using is an audiophile approved one?  Would Tidal sound better is their server(s) were Innuous?  This is, perhaps, a topic for another thread, but I am just offering it up as food for thought.

[barrows]

13 minutes ago, BigAlMc said:

I tried a pair of FMCs and whilst they made a difference they were never perfect because the FMC closest to the DAC introduces almost as many problems as the optical run solves.

Agreed that in this scenario the downstream FMC is the "problem".  But that does not mean that one can still not test the thesis this way:

 

A pair of FMCs and optical cable, then trade back and forth the server for an Innuous to an ordinary laptop.  this test would still show that optical isolation renders the "server" a non issue.

 

The solution to the problem of the downstream FMC, if/when one decides to go this route, is of course to use either a DAC such as the Lumin X-1 with an optical input, or a good purpose built Renderer (like Sonore opticalRendu) with an optical input, as these products should be built to audiophile standards in terms of noise and signal integrity (unlike the problematic FMC in the example).

 

As to a direct (USB) connected server vs. a network based solution that it is a different discussion than what I have been referring to.  Personally i left behind direct connected servers long ago, as there are just way too many problems to address with servers which are much more easily solved by going the Ethernet route.  While I do believe it possible for a direct connected server to perform very well, the extremes in terms of optimization that have to be gone to cost way too much to be practical, and Ethernet audio distribution solves these problems in much more efficient manner.

[barrows]

38 minutes ago, matthias said:

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.

When you go with this system what goes on inside the opticalRendu is what matters for sound quality.  Essentially the opticalRendu becomes the "server" if you will.  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).  Just make sure the upstream gear is well away physically from the audio system (such that airborne interference will not matter) and plugged into a different circuit, such that the noise it imparts on the AC line is not a significant issue (assuming you have some kind of decent power conditioning in place for the audio system). 

[barrows]

18 minutes ago, BigAlMc said:

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

 

If isolation, be it optical, Ethernet or captain kirks transponder solved everything then why would you have so many experienced audiophiles spending so much time, money and energy on the Zeniths, audiolinux NUCs and suchlike.

I challenge you to propose a  technical theory by which an upstream device will matter in an optical Ethernet based set up.  Ethernet (wired) isolation is good, but not perfect, and it is true that some interference can get through the small transformers which wired ethernet uses.  OTOH, optical Ethernet is perfectly isolated by definition, electrical noise cannot get through.  As long as we are talking about a bit perfect transmission here (not using different DSP in the server, etc) the upstream hardware will not matter.

 

As to your second question, yes, I agree.  There are a lot of audiophiles wasting time and money on things which do not matter.  This is normal audiophile behavior, and is not going to end anytime soon.  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. 

 

Now, if one is not going to use a Network connected system, for whatever reason, then for sure I would recommend the best possible audiophile type server be used, as with a direct connected server the quality of its output and its noise footprint is going to have a large effect on the sonic performance.

[barrows]

17 minutes ago, matthias said:

 

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

 

Matt

neither, it does not matter.  You get the sound quality of the Renderer.

[barrows]

30 minutes ago, matthias said:

You are walking on very thin ice. Software upstream matters, but hardware not?

Sorry, it sounds like I was not entirely clear, I'll put it another way and perhaps be able to get my point across:

 

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.

 

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 Renderer/DAC, that noise signature is no longer present.

[barrows]

6 minutes ago, matthias said:

 

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

As I mentioned before, of course if you use DSP in a server (whether that be oversampling, room correction, or whatever) of course the sound will change.  In fact, if you like to use lots of DSP, then an optical Ethernet connected approach is ideal, as one needs a powerful (and hence noisy) server in order to use lots of DSP functionality.

I have used Audirbana +, miniMserver, Squeezlite, and ROON here, so plenty of experience with the different Network protocols, except for HQPlayer and NAA (soon).

[barrows]

10 minutes ago, FredM said:

With no relevant knowledge on this subject, I did remember a viewpoint in the SOtM switch review: “There is no single product which removes noise completely, even though the product are good at reducing noise so it improves sound quality, it doesn’t mean that the products remove noise completely”. I guess only listening in practice will give the answer (in both cases).

The optical connection stops all upstream noise from getting to the downstream components, period.  From that downstream point (Renderer) all the noise and signal integrity (USB) issues that exist matter for sound quality, so use the best Renderer you can.

 

I can site sources from the Internet which will support any view one can imagine: in fact, on this very site I can find posts which say that optical Ethernet sounds bad, that Wifi Ethernet is best, that wired Ethernet is best, that optical Ethernet is best, heck, I can find sources who say that a direct connected laptop running iTunes is as good as it can get!

 

Do not believe everything you read.

 

I also often see the opinion that "we do not understand everything there is to know about digital audio"; while of course that is true, this notion does not mean that we should disbelieve the technical matters which we actually do completely understand.

 

 

[barrows]

8 minutes ago, Dutch said:

The designer of the equipment you advocate seems to disagree.

I am referring to electrical noise, not esoteric phase noise from the upstream clock(s).

 

At this point I would like to note we are getting into a very esoteric area.  There is presently no accepted science which explains if, and how, the phase noise of an upstream clock can affect the performance of a downstream Renderer.  First consider that the Renderer operates asynchronously, that is it ignores the upstream clock, and re-clocks all data to its own internal clock.  So the performance of the internal clock in the Renderer is paramount.  Once we accept this fact, we must first make sure our choice in renderers use a good internal clock(s).

OK, to discuss upstream clock phase noise, again, there is no accepted science of if/how upstream phase noise might effect the performance of a downstream Renderer...  Let that sink in before you go on believing this is a real problem.  After that has sunk in, let's consider: there is some anecdotal evidence to suggest the somehow upstream clocks are effecting downstream, even asynchronous, Renderers.  I believe there is enough anecdotal evidence to suggest further investigation into this.  John is currently making those investigations, and he is hoping to be able to measure these effects (if there are any).  I look forward to seeing what results he comes up with.  Let us also note that there are some really sketchily "engineered" products out there (like modified switches) that claim to reduce clock phase noise on Ethernet connections, and that some of the anecdotal evidence reported is based on these devices.

In the mean time I do look forward to testing for myself if a better upstream clock makes any audible difference (via an audiophile FMC with good engineering), and I will do that as soon as possible.  If it does, it is an easy "problem" to address, and does not change the fact that no electrical noise is carried on optical Ethernet connections. 

[barrows]

7 minutes ago, BigAlMc said:

Dude you are digging a hole for yourself.

Umm, no.  

 

If the upstream clock phase noise does turn out the an actual issue in terms of an optical Ethernet based architecture, there is an easy and (relatively) inexpensive way to address that without resorting to the (what, $7K to $XXK) expense of an audiophile sever: just add an UpTone Etherregen, problem solved, with a well engineered solution at a reasonable price.  There will soon be other well engineered, reasonably priced solutions for such as well.

 

But I will be very surprised if the upstream clock performance even really matters, at this point I am remaining open minded on this possibility until i test it myself here.  But there is considerable evidence that this clock phase noise is a non-issue: such as the fact that the Internet even works at all, just consider all those thousands of clocks involved in getting a Tidal stream to your house, all adding their own heinous phase noise to your system.  I would suspect that Tidal would be unlistenable if clock phase noise (excepting the last in the chain) really was cumulative.

 

But by no means do I expect audiophiles to just blindly believe what I say, go ahead and test for yourself, like I suggested, just do not blindly follow some Internet hobbiest based on their experiences, test for yourself, in your own system.

[barrows]

19 minutes ago, BigAlMc said:

Put up or shut up my friend, because beyond that this is getting tired and we're doing the Op a disservice.

 

I find your attitude distasteful, and am unsure as to why I would be obligated to prove anything to you?

 

In any case, you are free to try whatever you would like, and you are free to post anything you would like, just as I am.  I have nothing to prove to you, or to anyone else for that matter, I am only here to offer the benefit of my experience and to present some of the actual technical facts surrounding different approaches to playback.  It is up to readers here to come to their own conclusions as to which approaches they might want to try in their own systems.

I feel I have made my position clear here, and presented the facts as well as possible, so now I will leave this thread so that others have some space to weigh in with their experiences.

[barrows]

On 2/23/2019 at 2:24 AM, BigAlMc said:

My debate with the gents from Sonore  here is that they claim that the isolation offered by Ethernet and now Optical when coupled with their low noise, designed for audio, Rendu board means the server is irrelevant. I disagree because my experience is that its better to not introduce that noise in the first place, using a good server like the Zenith. Rather than to rely on removing it later.

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.

 

Additionally,  Rendu products are not deigned to "remove" noise, indeed they are created to be as noise free as possible intrinsically.  And optical Ethernet connections do not "remove" noise either, they just cannot transmit electrical noise from the server (be it a NAS, a standard commercial computer, or an "audiophile" server) to the Renderer.

[barrows]

3 hours ago, matthias said:

better source upstream will generate a better signal

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.

[barrows]

6 hours ago, Summit said:

I don’t understand why the Sonore reps are allowed to promote their gear and tech in every thread. 

The OP asked questions specifically about Sonore gear-is there some reason you think we should not share our experiences and knowledge?  I would suggest also, as Innouous was mentioned by the OP, I would welcome representatives from that company to respond here as well, and contribute to the discussion.

[barrows]

3 hours ago, matthias said:

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.......

I guess a listener would have to be in both places at the same time to make that comparison. 🤣

[barrows]

3 hours ago, matthias said:

 

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

There is no information in those threads which answers any of my questions.  Just folks throwing **it at the wall to see what sticks.  I am well aware of much of the development for many "audiophile" servers, maybe you are not aware that Sonore used to build custom servers before we realized that better performance was achievable for way less expense via Ethernet audio distribution.

 

Again:  I am looking for your answer to this question:

 

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?

 

[barrows]

6 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

Given that we are comparing actual products (Servers) with future Sonore products which are currently unavailable and therefore not tried by anyone

Actually, these products have been tried by both Chris Connaker and the people who work with Sonore, like me.  This is exactly why I am commenting here.

WiFi has a few of inherent problems: one is that it generally does not achieve the same bandwidth as wired (or optical) connections, meaning there will be more data errors and hence more re-sends to correct those errors (please note I am not claiming there will be uncorrected errors).  It is plausible, but unproven, that more error correction by the endpoint will generate more processor noise, and could result in a decrease in sound quality.  In any case, for that reason alone I advise folks to avoid WiFi for music distribution if possible.  Another problem is that while WiFi systems should have enough bandwidth and signal integrity to transmit high resolution audio without hiccups, in practice, many Sonore customers have reported problems (dropouts, etc).  The other problem is the WiFi transceiver itself, this is by definition a source of noise, as it is a radio signal producer, and putting an actual radio transmitter in close proximity to the audio system is asking for trouble: this is why Sonore Renderers do not offer WiFi as an option built in (and why dCS who does offer WiFi advises not to use WiFi for best sound quality).

Now if you get great results with WiFi, good, I am happy for you.  Given the inherent potential problems with WiFi, I would not recommend that approach.  But, there is always more than one way to skin a cat, and if it works for you I am fine with that.

 

I will give a simple example of a test where I found upstream changes to make no difference in an optically connected system. I use a Mac Mini as a server.  @Superdad, has noted the the built in power supply of the Mini has a very large leakage current  problem.  So, I ground my Mini to shunt the leakage current and make it a non issue.  With wired Ethernet, this did result in a small improvement in sonics, with an optically connected system I cannot hear any difference with the Mini grounded or not (this is very easy to A/B as the ground connection is via a plug).  I have a way I can measure some of the electrical noise components coming over wired Ethernet to the audio system.  For example, with a wired (CAT 6A) set up, I can measure noise, even on the AC cables of each audio component.  With an optically cabled Ethernet connection, that noise is entirely gone.

 

Upstream electrical noise is fully isolated by the optical Ethernet connection.  Now, where there is room to investigate further (which I have mentioned in this thread) is with the performance of the upstream clocks.  While it is virtually impossible to come up with a viable explanation as to how these clocks would matter, considering the asynchronous transmission of Ethernet data, and the fact that the Internet actually works, despite the loads of accumulating phase noise from thousands of clocks along the way (if indeed that inaccuracy actually accumulates) there is enough anecdotal information to warrant further investigation.  So John Swenson is investigating this reported phenomena, and is trying to measure it-I look forward to seeing his results, and perhaps an explanation-because right now, no one has ever offered even the wildest theory as to how this could matter.  In any case, if the upstream clock's performance really is an issue, this could explain why you report that vibration control of your upstream components results in improvements in your WiFi isolated system, as clocks at these levels of phase noise are quite sensitive to vibration.  When the Sonore optical module is available, it will be easy to test (anecdotally, by listening at least) whether the upstream clock(s) actually matter, as it will have a femto level clock with a clean power rail: I look forward to making this test. 

[barrows]

28 minutes ago, Superdad said:

Grounding the computer only shunts the high-source-impedance leakage; It does nothing to eliminate the much larger amplitude, broadband, low-source-impedance AC leakage inherent in all SMPS units.  And our course the Mac mini is far from the only computer with an SMPS.

@Superdad.  But the above noise does not, generally speaking, go through ethernet transformers, and is not an issue in an Ethernet connected system as per my example.  While I would be concerned about this noise in a directly connected computer: mini-USB-DAC, I would not in the Ethernet environment of my example.  I know you are trying to sell your Mini mods and the very nice JS-2 supply here...

I need to get back to work here, lots on my plate, but will read JS' hypothesis linked above when I have a moment.  BTW, that title is USB jitter, and not what we are talking about here, USB jitter is well addressed by the Femto clocking in the Rendu's.  But perhaps the thesis addresses ethernet as well...

[barrows]

5 minutes ago, Superdad said:

The hypothesis applies to Ethernet as well.  You'll see that John indicates that.  And it is why we are going to the trouble and expense to use 600MHz active digital isolators, differential clocking, and 10GHz differential flip-flops--all in their own separate clock and power domain--in the EtherREGEN.

Good, I'll take a look.  Alex, do you have any thoughts on how the Internet can possibly work (or perhaps think Tidal/Qobuz) with all those clock's phase noise accumulating and creating problems?  I mean, how many clocks (relatively ordinary, ie not sub 90 Dbc/Hz phase noise at 10 Hz) do you think are involved in getting a Tidal stream to one's home, hundreds, right?  (I am no expert on the Internet!).

[barrows]

57 minutes ago, Superdad said:

The hypothesis applies to Ethernet as well.  You'll see that John indicates that.  And it is why we are going to the trouble and expense to use 600MHz active digital isolators, differential clocking, and 10GHz differential flip-flops--all in their own separate clock and power domain--in the EtherREGEN.

I read the description and have a number of issues with it.  Perhaps JS had to dumb it down too much for lay persons though... He describes (incoming) Phase Noise as if it is a separate thing from the clock fundamental frequency, which is not really an accurate way of looking at it.  Phase Noise is just the sum (or spectrum if one looks at that) of the parts left when one subtracts out the fundamental.  The way he describes the "Phase Noise" as affecting the ground plane, and hence, output of the FF would actually, equally (actually to a much greater degree as the fundamental is many times higher in level) apply to the clock fundamental frequency as well, given that the incoming clock is not synchronous with the out going clock.

 

Question: if the close in phase noise is The issue, then why would a 600 MHz isolator be a good feature?  If what one is concerned about is noise around 10 Hz?  This seems counterintuitive, no?

 

And, again, if accumulated clock phase noise in an asynchronous Ethernet environment, would one not have to draw the conclusion that streaming Tidal and Qobuz would be hopelessly compromised by the hundreds of switches these streams pass through?  I guess this would be a good reason for the etherRegen and its "clock blocking", no?  and anyone who does not have this feature in their system would get absolutely unlistenable sound form Tidal or Qobuz (I use neither so have no experience...)?  Could the Internet even work if such problems really exist?

[barrows]

24 minutes ago, OldBigEars said:

Question for Barrows.....(mR 1.4 + JS-2)  vs OptiRendu with a relatively modest PS - in your view, which would be better?

I have no experience with either of those power supplies so I cannot make any kind of relevant comment, really.

I would suggest the JS-2 has far more capability than that required by either the microRendu or the opticalRendu, considering the micro needs <1A of current and the optical needs about 1.3A of current.  So the cost comparison is not really fair in thta sense.  A much lower power (but still high quality) supply would make for a more fair cost comparison.

 

What I can say is that in my initial testing of the opticalRendu I used a supply of my own design I call the "Stealth Switcher".  This supply features a small LC input filter, followed by a very low noise/leakage current SMPS, followed by a RC filter, and then an ultra low noise/output impedance discrete regulator.  With this supply the opticalRendu was clearly better than any other USB source I have ever heard.

 

My recommendation for you is to go ahead with the opticalRendu, and power it with your CIA supply (as long as that supply can deliver 1.3A continuous at 7-8 VDC).  And then, later, perhaps, if you so desire, you can always go for a power supply upgrade of some sort.

[barrows]

6 minutes ago, incus said:

But you've just answered it!  What you say here applies perfectly to optical transmission as well! The more error correction the optical rendu will be forced to do, the worse it will sound. So, logically speaking, feeding it a better clocked signal will improve SQ.

As mentioned, unproven.  But, to satisfy those who want a better clocked signal Sonore has solutions for that coming soon.  And I am looking forward to testing them, as I have also stated in this thread (perhaps you should read it all before becoming so critical).  I am skeptical as to whether this will really matter in a system with the opticalRendu, but I will test with an open mind.  And, if it does make an actual improvement, then great, even better sound!  I still have not received an answer to this inquiry from those who claim clock phase noise (upstream as it were) actually accumulates and degrades the audio performance, as you appear to claim much expertise in the matter, how is it that Tidal and Qobuz can deliver even decent sound quality, considering the hundreds of clock domains their signals travel through to on the way to ones home?

 

8 minutes ago, incus said:

I cannot help but say that much of what you have said here is, to the letter, 100% false according to my extensive experimentation with streaming music in both my two-channel rig and my desk-top rig

Your "extensive experimentation" does not include the opticalRendu, mine does.  My reports here are accurate to my experience, when you have experience of the opticalRendu in this context then you will you will have an opinion of what is "right" and "wrong" (or at least a sound quality that you prefer over another).

 

17 minutes ago, incus said:

so I could suggest you stop passing off subjective experiences/motivations as objective truth

OK, either I misunderstand you or something is very wrong with the above statement?  Honestly, i am a bit confused here: All of your observations on sound quality of different set ups are based on measurements?  Or do you use "subjective" experiences to determine your "truths"?  For the record, i rely on both measurements, verifiable data, and subjective listening experiences in order to make informed decisions about how to improve system sound quality.

 

One more thing.  I accept that there is more than one way to skin a cat.  Multiple approaches to sound quality can lead to good performances and not everyone even agrees on what kind of sound quality is "best".  I have reported on my experiences, even if my experiences do not match yours, that does not make them "100% false".