Jump to content
IGNORED

Differences in sound: DAC vs. DAC + Pre-amplifier


Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

Jitter figures do not correlate completely with pace, rhythm, and timing (or in musical terms, attack, sustain, decay, release). Power supply is also a huge factor in PRaT, not sure what else.

 

The nearest RME vendor is hundreds of miles away, and I'm no longer interested in a USB DAC. I want an ethernet DAC, so I'm not very likely to hear the ADI-2.

Yes, I agree, power supply is a huge factor in sound quality. Not sure how an ethernet DAC would improve that..

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Abtr said:

Yes, I agree, power supply is a huge factor in sound quality. Not sure how an ethernet DAC would improve that..

I want an ethernet DAC:

1) So I can move my sMS-200 to my headphone system. I made the mistake of trying it there instead of my Dell laptop, and I want it back.

2) I suspect that having a common clock for streamer and DAC may benefit PRaT. I have not been able to test this, never having heard an ethernet DAC. The Auralic Altair G1 seems to excel at PRaT from the sonic descriptions I've read.

Main System: QNAP TS-451+ NAS > Silent Angel Bonn N8 > Sonore opticalModule Deluxe v2 > Corning SMF with Finisar FTLF1318P3BTL SFPs > Uptone EtherREGEN > exaSound PlayPoint and e32 Mk-II DAC > Meitner MTR-101 Plus monoblocks > Bamberg S5-MTM sealed standmount speakers. 

Crown XLi 1500 powering  AV123 Rocket UFW10 stereo subwoofers

Upgraded power on all switches, renderer and DAC. 

 

Link to comment
15 hours ago, barrows said:

The above is not possible, the clock frequencies required for Ethernet transmission and audio data are different.

 

While I agree that a direct ethernet connected DAC is a desirable thing, in practice it is very difficult to implement a good Ethernet interface inside a DAC.  By no means am I suggesting it is impossible to do so, but doing so does require paying attention to a lot of details.  Decoding Ethernet data to digital audio samples requires quite a bit of processor power, quite a bit more than, for example, USB audio processing to digital audio data.  And even USB interfaces inside DACs benefit a lot from careful implementation and isolation.  For example, a typical USB interface requires around only 200 mA of power at around 5 VDC, whereas even a less capable (sample rate limited) Ethernet interface requires at a minimum 500 mA of power at 5 VDC, and a better Ethernet interface (like Sonore's optical) requires well over 1 A at 7 VDC to work with higher sample rates.  This power requirement transfers fairly directly into processor noise, inside the DAC chassis.

Currently, most DACs (not all) with inbuilt Ethernet interfaces are both sample rate limited, and not adequately isolated from the DAC circuitry.  Mostly this is because most DAC companies are quickly adding Ethernet interfaces using relatively affordable, off the shelf modules, of limited performance.  One exception is Lumin, and another is Linn, although while the Linn Klimax DS provides superb performance, it is still sample rate limited.

 

The way to do it right:

 

1. Design your own Ethernet interface (preferably with optical input for noise isolation), capable of all sample rates to PCM 768 and DSD 512 (or higher).  And be sure to use high end design approaches all around, many low noise regulated supplies, high precision ultra low phase noise oscillator, etc, etc.  Not an affordable off the shelf module.  Designing such a module requires an engineer highly skilled in high speed circuit engineering, preferably someone with extensive computer mother board design expertise, typical engineers at audio companies do not have the required expertise for this, so the dAC manufacturer will likely have to sub-contract a suitable engineer for the project.

 

2. Make sure the digital audio output (I2S) from he Ethernet interface is fully galvanically isolated from the rest of the DAC.  Note that to provide full galvanic isolation it is also necessary to supply power to the Ethernet interface from a dedicated supply, preferably from a separate dedicated transformer.

 

3.  Make sure the Ethernet interface is physically shielded in a separate sub enclosure to reduce the amount of airborne RF pollution on the inside of the DAC chassis which can couple into the analog outputs.  Note that both Lumin X-1, and Linn Klimax DS do appear to address this need, as does the Mola Mola Tambaqui.

 

I would expect to pay around a $2K USD premium for a really good Ethernet interface inside a DAC, all other things being equal. This can come at some savings if the DAC maker is willing to forgo other inputs altogether, which would be my preference for best sound quality: simple has its advantages.  An Ethernet only input might be able to come with a $1.5K USD premium over the same model DAC with only typical inputs.

 

 


So this is what John Swenson is working on 😀


Like a new version of the Squeezebox Touch with RAAT and NAA. 

 


 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, wklie said:

 

To the best of my knowledge, Lumin was the first network player to add DSD support to UPnP network streaming back in 2012.  We ran into several difficulties.  UPnP media servers at that time would not even stream DSD files.  So we supported DoP file as well - and we contributed to the preparation of DoP file.  (Now Roon refuses to support DoP files, so we have Lumin users with DoP files finding that Roon would not play them.)

 

If you can let me know which product directly supported DSD over UPnP network playback in 2012 or before that, I'd appreciate it.

I must admit I am not aware of a Lumin Renderer available here in the US in 2012.  Can you educate me with some of Lumins' history?

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, barrows said:

I must admit I am not aware of a Lumin Renderer available here in the US in 2012.  Can you educate me with some of Lumins' history?

 

We have a 100-page thread here started in 2012, our Lumin Firmware History web page also started in 2012, and Chris posted a review for us in August 2013.  Network playback of DSD has been available in our initial firmware in 2012.

 

Since Leedh Processing Volume was discussed here, I'll say this.  I have no need to defend its SQ.  I prefer to leave this to our users' reports.

Peter Lie

LUMIN Firmware Lead

Link to comment
On 6/6/2020 at 10:41 PM, barrows said:

The above is not possible, the clock frequencies required for Ethernet transmission and audio data are different.

 

While I agree that a direct ethernet connected DAC is a desirable thing, in practice it is very difficult to implement a good Ethernet interface inside a DAC.  By no means am I suggesting it is impossible to do so, but doing so does require paying attention to a lot of details.  Decoding Ethernet data to digital audio samples requires quite a bit of processor power, quite a bit more than, for example, USB audio processing to digital audio data.  And even USB interfaces inside DACs benefit a lot from careful implementation and isolation.  For example, a typical USB interface requires around only 200 mA of power at around 5 VDC, whereas even a less capable (sample rate limited) Ethernet interface requires at a minimum 500 mA of power at 5 VDC, and a better Ethernet interface (like Sonore's optical) requires well over 1 A at 7 VDC to work with higher sample rates.  This power requirement transfers fairly directly into processor noise, inside the DAC chassis.

Currently, most DACs (not all) with inbuilt Ethernet interfaces are both sample rate limited, and not adequately isolated from the DAC circuitry.  Mostly this is because most DAC companies are quickly adding Ethernet interfaces using relatively affordable, off the shelf modules, of limited performance.  One exception is Lumin, and another is Linn, although while the Linn Klimax DS provides superb performance, it is still sample rate limited.

 

The way to do it right:

 

1. Design your own Ethernet interface (preferably with optical input for noise isolation), capable of all sample rates to PCM 768 and DSD 512 (or higher).  And be sure to use high end design approaches all around, many low noise regulated supplies, high precision ultra low phase noise oscillator, etc, etc.  Not an affordable off the shelf module.  Designing such a module requires an engineer highly skilled in high speed circuit engineering, preferably someone with extensive computer mother board design expertise, typical engineers at audio companies do not have the required expertise for this, so the dAC manufacturer will likely have to sub-contract a suitable engineer for the project.

 

2. Make sure the digital audio output (I2S) from he Ethernet interface is fully galvanically isolated from the rest of the DAC.  Note that to provide full galvanic isolation it is also necessary to supply power to the Ethernet interface from a dedicated supply, preferably from a separate dedicated transformer.

 

3.  Make sure the Ethernet interface is physically shielded in a separate sub enclosure to reduce the amount of airborne RF pollution on the inside of the DAC chassis which can couple into the analog outputs.  Note that both Lumin X-1, and Linn Klimax DS do appear to address this need, as does the Mola Mola Tambaqui.

 

I would expect to pay around a $2K USD premium for a really good Ethernet interface inside a DAC, all other things being equal. This can come at some savings if the DAC maker is willing to forgo other inputs altogether, which would be my preference for best sound quality: simple has its advantages.  An Ethernet only input might be able to come with a $1.5K USD premium over the same model DAC with only typical inputs.

 

 

Why put an ethernet to i2S interface inside a DAC?

Isn't it better to have an external device doing that and the DAC only having an i2S input, like what Aqua are doing with their LinkQ?

https://www.aquahifi.com/Introducing_LinQ.html

Or maybe design an external optical to i2S converter...?

Link to comment
3 hours ago, tedwoods said:

Why put an ethernet to i2S interface inside a DAC?

Isn't it better to have an external device doing that and the DAC only having an i2S input, like what Aqua are doing with their LinkQ?

https://www.aquahifi.com/Introducing_LinQ.html

Or maybe design an external optical to i2S converter...?

To begin with I2S was never intended to go between cases. True (single ended) I2S should have very short leads as the signals are in the RF band and very susceptible to noise and interference. Balanced I2S using HDMI cables requires additional circuitry to make it work, whereby potentially effecting it as well. Barrows is correct in general.

Forrest:

Win10 i9 9900KS/GTX1060 HQPlayer4>Win10 NAA

DSD>Pavel's DSC2.6>Bent Audio TAP>

Parasound JC1>"Naked" Quad ESL63/Tannoy PS350B subs<100Hz

Link to comment
5 hours ago, tedwoods said:

Why put an ethernet to i2S interface inside a DAC?

Because that is what I2S transmission is designed for.

Using I2S between components, especially how it is generally implemented now (the PS Audio protocol) is a flawed approach.  Commonly used I2S transmission between components right now generally uses LVDS signaling, which is a balanced version of I2S.  It is good that it is balanced signaling, but it must converted at each end from balanced to single ended through LVDS chips.  These chips add jitter at each end.  Additionally, the current way I2S is implemented makes the source the master clock generator, meaning, just as with SPDIF, the DAC must use the source clock as the master.  this is also the wrong way to get low jitter conversion.  For low jitter conversion you want the master clock as close, physically, to the conversion stage as possible.

 

Now, you can overcome most of the above obstacles through heroic engineering efforts at asynchronous I2S reception, and fully asynchronous re-clocking to a local master clock, but just as it is with SPDIF, engineering a fully async I2S receiver is tremendously difficult-because, unlike USB audio, there is no way to speed up or slow down the transmission from the source, so managing the buffer to not have overuns or underuns is very, very difficult.

 

It is much easier to make a low jitter, "perfect" digital audio interface, with USB, despite the many folks' opinions that USB audio is somehow flawed in nature.

 

Still, my "Ultimate DAC concept" would have an optical Ethernet input (only), which was well isolated from the rest of the DAC internally: with its own separate power supply, inside its own separate shielded sub enclosure, and completely galvanically isolated from the the rest of the DAC.  Then you can have a single master clock for the DAC section, adjacent to the conversion stage, and this clock can remain clean and undisturbed by any other clocks.  (As any other clock frequencies used will be in the isolated Ethernet receiver section).

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment
1 hour ago, barrows said:

Still, my "Ultimate DAC concept" would have an optical Ethernet input (only), which was well isolated from the rest of the DAC internally: with its own separate power supply, inside its own separate shielded sub enclosure, and completely galvanically isolated from the the rest of the DAC.  Then you can have a single master clock for the DAC section, adjacent to the conversion stage, and this clock can remain clean and undisturbed by any other clocks.  (As any other clock frequencies used will be in the isolated Ethernet receiver section).

That would be a very interesting solution, to say the least...

Link to comment
3 hours ago, barrows said:

Still, my "Ultimate DAC concept" would have an optical Ethernet input (only), which was well isolated from the rest of the DAC internally: with its own separate power supply, inside its own separate shielded sub enclosure, and completely galvanically isolated from the the rest of the DAC.  Then you can have a single master clock for the DAC section, adjacent to the conversion stage, and this clock can remain clean and undisturbed by any other clocks.  (As any other clock frequencies used will be in the isolated Ethernet receiver section).

 

The biggest drawback of this concept for me is that you can use this kind of DAC as endpoint only and not connect directly to a high quality server via USB.

The experiences with very good servers show that a direct connection of a DAC to the server via USB does sound better than using the same DAC with an endpoint which in this case would be an Ethernet-DAC as combi of both.

 

But as always YMMV

 

Matt

 

"I want to know why the musicians are on stage, not where". (John Farlowe)

 

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, matthias said:

 

The biggest drawback of this concept for me is that you can use this kind of DAC as endpoint only and not connect directly to a high quality server via USB.

The experiences with very good servers show that a direct connection of a DAC to the server via USB does sound better than using the same DAC with an endpoint which in this case would be an Ethernet-DAC as combi of both.

 

But as always YMMV

 

Matt

 

Yeah well, my experience is the opposite, and there is also absolute zero technical evidence to support the above, in fact every technical metric points in the opposite direction.

 

No matter how ridiculously sophisticated a custom server is, it can NEVER have a noise profile which is as low as that of a properly designed and engineered Ethernet Renderer, it is just not possible.  So, if one prefers the sound of a server to the properly designed and implemented Ethernet renderer, the only logical conclusion that one can draw, is that one is preferring the noisier component, and the extra artifacts which the DAC produces when connected to the noisier component.

 

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment
On 6/6/2020 at 9:41 PM, barrows said:

The above is not possible, the clock frequencies required for Ethernet transmission and audio data are different.

 

While I agree that a direct ethernet connected DAC is a desirable thing, in practice it is very difficult to implement a good Ethernet interface inside a DAC.  By no means am I suggesting it is impossible to do so, but doing so does require paying attention to a lot of details.  Decoding Ethernet data to digital audio samples requires quite a bit of processor power, quite a bit more than, for example, USB audio processing to digital audio data.  And even USB interfaces inside DACs benefit a lot from careful implementation and isolation.  For example, a typical USB interface requires around only 200 mA of power at around 5 VDC, whereas even a less capable (sample rate limited) Ethernet interface requires at a minimum 500 mA of power at 5 VDC, and a better Ethernet interface (like Sonore's optical) requires well over 1 A at 7 VDC to work with higher sample rates.  This power requirement transfers fairly directly into processor noise, inside the DAC chassis.

Currently, most DACs (not all) with inbuilt Ethernet interfaces are both sample rate limited, and not adequately isolated from the DAC circuitry.  Mostly this is because most DAC companies are quickly adding Ethernet interfaces using relatively affordable, off the shelf modules, of limited performance.  One exception is Lumin, and another is Linn, although while the Linn Klimax DS provides superb performance, it is still sample rate limited.

 

The way to do it right:

 

1. Design your own Ethernet interface (preferably with optical input for noise isolation), capable of all sample rates to PCM 768 and DSD 512 (or higher).  And be sure to use high end design approaches all around, many low noise regulated supplies, high precision ultra low phase noise oscillator, etc, etc.  Not an affordable off the shelf module.  Designing such a module requires an engineer highly skilled in high speed circuit engineering, preferably someone with extensive computer mother board design expertise, typical engineers at audio companies do not have the required expertise for this, so the dAC manufacturer will likely have to sub-contract a suitable engineer for the project.

 

2. Make sure the digital audio output (I2S) from he Ethernet interface is fully galvanically isolated from the rest of the DAC.  Note that to provide full galvanic isolation it is also necessary to supply power to the Ethernet interface from a dedicated supply, preferably from a separate dedicated transformer.

 

3.  Make sure the Ethernet interface is physically shielded in a separate sub enclosure to reduce the amount of airborne RF pollution on the inside of the DAC chassis which can couple into the analog outputs.  Note that both Lumin X-1, and Linn Klimax DS do appear to address this need, as does the Mola Mola Tambaqui.

 

I would expect to pay around a $2K USD premium for a really good Ethernet interface inside a DAC, all other things being equal. This can come at some savings if the DAC maker is willing to forgo other inputs altogether, which would be my preference for best sound quality: simple has its advantages.  An Ethernet only input might be able to come with a $1.5K USD premium over the same model DAC with only typical inputs.

 

 

 

How do you ensure "perfect galvanic isolation"? With what technology?

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, hopkins said:

How do you ensure "perfect galvanic isolation"? With what technology?

 

A lot of stuff there I put in quotes, usually when I put "perfect" anything regarding electronics i put it in quotes.  Perfect in this sense is a concept, which may never be achieved, or it might be in some instances,

 

In any case, different engineers have different preferences when it comes to which isolation technologies to use.  These are used to isolate USB interfaces from the rest of the DAC as well.  Some are GMR based isolation chips (these are magnetically based on a chip), some choose optical isolation chips, some use capacitive isolation chips, and some might choose to use larger magnetics (non chip based transformers).  I am not a high speed circuit designer, and have no opinion on which approach might be best in any given situation.  But I have plenty of experience comparing isolated USB interfaces to non-isolated USB interfaces, and isolated is superior, and does result in a large degree of noise reduction from the USB interface to the DAC conversion and analog stages, nothing is perfect though.  But, the point being that if one wants an Ethernet interface inside a DAC (and I am one who does), best practice would be to isolate it by using one's favorite/best isolation approaches and maintain that isolation by powering it from a dedicated power supply, including a dedicated transformer.  Additionally, i would prefer an Ethernet interface to be physically shielded from the DAC circuitry in its own sub enclosure to avoid airborne RF interference.  Take a look at internal photos of the Lumin X-1 DAC, for example, it follows these design implementations

 

None of these isolation measures is going to be perfect though, nothing is (consider that there may be noise crosstalk at the AC input itself, for example), but such measures when done well have proven to improve DAC performance to levels where further efforts in this direction are probably not going to result in any actual audible change.

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment
1 hour ago, barrows said:

 

A lot of stuff there I put in quotes, usually when I put "perfect" anything regarding electronics i put it in quotes.  Perfect in this sense is a concept, which may never be achieved, or it might be in some instances,

 

In any case, different engineers have different preferences when it comes to which isolation technologies to use.  These are used to isolate USB interfaces from the rest of the DAC as well.  Some are GMR based isolation chips (these are magnetically based on a chip), some choose optical isolation chips, some use capacitive isolation chips, and some might choose to use larger magnetics (non chip based transformers).  I am not a high speed circuit designer, and have no opinion on which approach might be best in any given situation.  But I have plenty of experience comparing isolated USB interfaces to non-isolated USB interfaces, and isolated is superior, and does result in a large degree of noise reduction from the USB interface to the DAC conversion and analog stages, nothing is perfect though.  But, the point being that if one wants an Ethernet interface inside a DAC (and I am one who does), best practice would be to isolate it by using one's favorite/best isolation approaches and maintain that isolation by powering it from a dedicated power supply, including a dedicated transformer.  Additionally, i would prefer an Ethernet interface to be physically shielded from the DAC circuitry in its own sub enclosure to avoid airborne RF interference.  Take a look at internal photos of the Lumin X-1 DAC, for example, it follows these design implementations

 

None of these isolation measures is going to be perfect though, nothing is (consider that there may be noise crosstalk at the AC input itself, for example), but such measures when done well have proven to improve DAC performance to levels where further efforts in this direction are probably not going to result in any actual audible change.

 

So tell me if I understand correctly:

 

- you are not specialized in this field

- you acknowledge that you are basing your claim on comparing what could very well be "imperfect" solutions

 

Yet you go around claiming in all threads the superiority of a given architecture? 

 

"such measures when done well have proven to improve DAC performance to levels where further efforts in this direction are probably not going to result in any actual audible change." 

 

Hmmm

Link to comment

Well having owned the Sonore Optical Rendu, Optical Module and Uptone JS-2 Supply, I can tell you that the Lumin X1 is far superior  to the front end I had before.

It may have been the age of the DAC (BADA Series 2) but whatever the Lumin X1 is doing, it works great.

I also like the fact that it is well made and a single box solution that I just put fiber in and take balanced analog out.

If you want to deal with a lot of boxes and wires (and their individual ground connections), go for it.

 

I would encourage people to actually hear the X1, preferably in their own system and then decide.

 

 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, hopkins said:

- you are not specialized in this field

I am not a high speed circuit designer, as stated.

 

I have worked in high end audio for around 20 years now, often coordinating directly with very talented engineers who are high speed circuit designers, and I have had these discussions with them.  Isolation of USB and Ethernet receiver circuitry is a well understood and fairly mature technology, and there is not much debate about how to do it properly, it is accepted tech.

 

In addition, I have personally built 10-12 DACs (lost count) DIY, using various approaches, including isolated and non-isolated input receivers both USB and Ethernet based approaches, and have made direct comparisons amongst them.  I am totally convinced that when properly implemented, an isolated USB/Ethernet receiver is superior.  

 

So I both have direct experience of the subject matter at hand, and the experience of a handful of very talented and sharp high speed circuit engineers from whom I have learned a lot about isolating digital inputs.

 

13 minutes ago, hopkins said:

- you acknowledge that you are basing your claim on comparing what could very well be "imperfect" solutions

 

As mentioned, there is no "perfect" solution to providing isolation from the input receiver, all solutions will have some capacitive coupling across the isolation barrier (some more than others).  What is clear though, is that having isolation is superior to not having isolation, as the level of noise which can get across the barrier is much, much less than if one just has a direct electrical connection and no isolation.

 

I am really unsure as to what your motivation is here?  It is generally accepted that it is proper engineering to isolate noisy digital audio interfaces which include high speed processing chips (USB or ethernet qualify for this) and most well implemented USB DACs, and some Ethernet DACs do exactly that: I am not exactly advocating for anything controversial here.  Is there some other approach which you would advocate for or something, or are you just looking to create Internet based tensions?

 

 

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, EvilTed said:

Well having owned the Sonore Optical Rendu, Optical Module and Uptone JS-2 Supply, I can tell you that the Lumin X1 is far superior  to the front end I had before.

It may have been the age of the DAC (BADA Series 2) but whatever the Lumin X1 is doing, it works great.

I also like the fact that it is well made and a single box solution that I just put fiber in and take balanced analog out.

If you want to deal with a lot of boxes and wires (and their individual ground connections), go for it.

 

I would encourage people to actually hear the X1, preferably in their own system and then decide.

 

 

I heard the X-1 at RMAF last fall, I agree it sounds great!  But that is a DAC, and I am not sure what that has to do with Sonore Renderers, they are not rally comparable products?  Not that my posts here have anything at all to do with Sonore products anyway... we were talking about DACs, right?

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment
Just now, hopkins said:

There actually is debate about its efficacy! 

Umm, what debate would that be?  

SO/ROON/HQPe: DSD 512-Sonore opticalModuleDeluxe-Signature Rendu optical with Well Tempered Clock--DIY DSC-2 DAC with SC Pure Clock--DIY Purifi Amplifier-Focus Audio FS888 speakers-JL E 112 sub-Nordost Tyr USB, DIY EventHorizon AC cables, Iconoclast XLR & speaker cables, Synergistic Purple Fuses, Spacetime system clarifiers.  ISOAcoustics Oreas footers.                                                       

                                                                                           SONORE computer audio

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...