Jump to content

sb6

  • Content Count

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About sb6

  • Rank
    Newbie

Personal Information

  • Location
    Round Rock, TX

Recent Profile Visitors

1032 profile views
  1. It would be interesting to see if changing the CAS latency has any sonic affects. My gut says yes.
  2. Just had mine upgraded, well worth the $. My review from WBF: Two years after purchase I finally had the Aqua Formula xHD upgrade performed. In somewhat of a nutshell here's my experience: With Alex's help I shipped the DAC to Aqua in Italy which was returned upgraded in about 3 weeks which went flawlessly. Also, while having the DAC upgraded to xHD I had the fuse replaced with a Blue Quantum fuse. In terms of break - in, while most of the upgrade goodness occurs after ~120 hours of break - in I found that at about 200 hours it settled down. A few setup comments: Before the upgrade I found upsampling PCM to sound best, however with the xHD I now find DSD upsampling to be superior. In my experience hearing quite a few DACs I always thought that upsampling to DSD sounded a bit brittle and thin whether upsamping DSD or PCM. On several Esoterics I noticed this and as such I stayed away from DSD upsampling. That's not the case with the xHD - DSD sounds fabulous upsampling to Quad DSD. More below. The difference between the non xHD upsampled to 384K PCM versus xHD also upsampled to 384K PCM (highest upsampling capability before the upgrade): Added bass weight and tightness, ability to hear further into the music (more detail), further effortlessness, more detailed spacial cues and in a nutshell just plain more real. The difference between the non xHD upsampled to 384K PCM versus the xHD upsampled to 768K PCM yields additional information without sounding overwhelming, fatiguing or overly analytical. xHD upsampling to Quad DSD: I know many folks swear by DSD files (and true native DSD recordings) and I'm now a believer. Playing DSD upsampled to Quad DSD is other worldly good. The amount of information is staggering, the sound stage layering in depth and width is another level better and again, the realism is better than I expected my speakers could articulate. Net - I'm quite satisfied with the upgrade, worth every penny. I'm in no rush for a DAC upgrade and if I did jump, it would be to the TD12 in the distant future. Thanks for the assistance Alex!
  3. Completely untrue. Google it and ask those that are professionals. Also, perusing your other posts, I think we are done here...
  4. Really? Since you seem to be the expert please enlighten me.
  5. Irrespective of what / where the storage mechanism is the data passes through the switch, NIC and computer where it is prone to jitter and noise.
  6. I assume you used the stock wall wart and internal PSU for the Cisco? Curious if you have you ever tried the Netgear with a LPSU versus the Cisco with it's internal PSU?
  7. Please help me understand something - The Sonore rendus accept ethernet in and USB out, D to D converters. If you are using, say HQplayer or Roon, what's the benefit of the rendu if it requires a cleaned up signal (e.g.: not from a stock computer with a noisy switching PSU, D to D MB converters, etc)? If I spend the time and $ to clean up the signal at the source (the computer) then why do I need a rendu versus connecting an optimised PC direct to the DAC? Isn't that one of the main reasons for the rendus coupled with a LPSU and internal femto reclocking? I'm not trying to dismiss the qualities and benefits of the rendus, but want to ensure I understand the rendu's purpose for my configuration.
  8. Thanks, queued 20 songs and it seems to be working flawlessly. I would still love to know how many folks run direct to DAC and if they run a reclocker in between and what were the results.
  9. Understood, but I would think connecting to a PC and ultra rendu to a switch with a wall wart which has additional ethernet cables connected is a vehicle for noise. Plus the cheap oscillator in the switch and overall cheap components would be detrimental. I do however get the goodness from xformers at ethernet jacks providing some isolation.
  10. Yep I understand and tried it and it didn't work - in the past. I just tried it again and it does work, thanks for reiterating auto-MDX eliminates the need for a xover cable. Not sure what changed, or whether but seems to be working fine now.
  11. I did read most of that gigantic thread quite a while back which is where I leveraged the idea to skip the switch and run ethernet direct. Again, " I know there are threads that touch on this, but can I ask how many people have bypassed a switch, gone with 2 NICs bridged and connected their Mac / PC directly to their micro / ultra rendu via a crossover cable?"
  12. Thanks but your link to another thread doesn't answer my question, only that it's not a supported Sonore config . I am running direct from PC to ultrarendu via a crossover cable and found a sonic benefit when bypassing a Netgear switch. I would think others would do so and am wonfeding who is and if not, why so? is it possible that using an "Audiophile quality" ethernet switch and connecting conventionally and as supported by Sonore yields better sonics than direct connect from PC to ultrarendu?
  13. I know there are threads that touch on this, but can I ask how many people have bypassed a switch, gone with 2 NICs bridged and connected their Mac / PC directly to their micro / ultra rendu via a crossover cable?
  14. I leave on my Aqua 24x7 also. However, I found after shutting off my system while on vacation that it takes about a full day after being turned on to sound its best. Also, here's another review that I agree with the reviewer - https://www.aquahifi.com/file/reviews/SoundstageAustalia_Formula_xHD_2019.pdf
×
×
  • Create New...