BigAlMc

I was wondering the same. @ArthurPower Great to see you join this discussion and I look forward to your input. Leaving aside the cost of Euphony licences and the relative value/expense in this hobby, here's the question that's been bouncing around my restless mind. For Audiolinux NUC server and endpoint combos the general consensus has seemed to be that the endpoint contributes 80-60% of the SQ improvements (largely because it's closest to the DAC) and the server contributes 20-40% of the SQ improvement. So if I was to only buy one Euphony licence then it seems intuitive that it would be better for SQ to use it on the endpoint rather than the server. In your opinion is my logic missing anything here? Also given Euphony is essentially server software that will work as an endpoint are there any compelling arguments for ensuring the server and endpoint both run on Euphony? Finally, in the Euphony universe do your users seem to agree with the 80-60 endpoint and 20-40 server contributions that I've quoted above. Many Thanks, Alan PS as someone that works in software development (non audio alas) I totally get the argument that better support costs more. Just saying I'm not being critical of the costs. I'm simply trying to assess the options here.

In fairness I had the ISO Regen and the SU-1 powered off the same LPS-1 for convenience even tho I understood there was an SQ penalty in doing so. But much as I like both yours and Alex's products I found the Zenith beat them. But different products and different price brackets, so not trying to take anything away from either of you. Cheers, Alan

Yup, loved the ISO Regent and one of the best bang for bucks purchases out there.

Hi Jesus, Was this the 1.4 board upgrade? If so then I bought it via Martin Smith in the UK. Cheers, Alan

When I had the Audiostore Prestige I had a fairly convoluted chain to try and maximise the SQ which evolved but basically entailed a MicroRendu, ISO Regen and Singxer SU-1. With the Zenith MKII the SQ I was getting direct to my DAC - by both Ethernet and USB was so good I was able to dispense with the spaghetti chain of fixer-uppers. Hence my argument earlier in this thread that it's better to not introduce noise than to try and remove it later. That was my experience anyway. I then got my Zenith SE and it was even better still. However much to my annoyance people said and I found it be to true that the TX-USBUltra further improved the USB output from the SE. But given we're now talking about a £1200 quid fixer-upper that needs a £400/500 power supply to shine it's a big leap compared to the relatively modest price points of the ISO Regen and SU-1. I've no regrets as I enjoyed and loved them all. But Innuos know what they are doing and the Zenith series are very well engineered. The MKII impressed me so much I actually wondered whether I needed to bother with the SE at all. But given I'd already parted with an eye-watering figure for the SE I stuck to the plan. Cheers, Alan

Hi Foggie, I went directly from an Audiostore Prestige 2 (UK version of SonicTransporter running same SonicOrbiter OS) to an Innuos Zenith mkII and the jump in SQ was well worth the price difference. The SonicTransporter / Audiostore Prestige line are good value at that price point. The Zeniths are better. Simples. Cheers, Alan

Thanks Bob, Read that entire thread and it's a good start. Still think a quick primer here would be helpful. You're on a bit of a roll currently but you're also creating quite a few threads and cross pollinating which can make it tricky to follow. Cheers, Alan

Hi Bob, Great work. Looking forward to reading about this latest mission. Meantime as well as the all important listening comparisons, given this is a Euphony dedicated thread it might be good to start with a quick primer on what Euphony and Stylus are and how they differ from say Audiolinux and say the WindowsServer OS. Just a suggestion. Look forward to your listening impressions. Tho I hope it doesn't cost me any money 😉 Cheers, Alan

Oh the Op has long since given up on this thread and the argumentative types propelling it in circles 🙄 @McNulty Did you decide or would you care to share your latest thinking? We promise to be nice regardless. Cheers, Alan

Not sure I follow the balanced/unbalanced comment but I found it interesting you use a MicroRendu instead of an UltraRendu. What PS are you using here? Cheers, Alan

Thanks Jesus, When you say Signature SE with OpticalRendu board is that the OpticalRendu but with the superior power supply of your SE range? Cheers, Alan

What endpoint or renderer are you using currently? Cheers, Alan

Sorry, I didn't mean Jesus as in your name. Was using the swearword version of the lords name. @barrows I apologise. I went too far. My argument stands but I apologise unreservedly for the full of shit comment. My bad. Cheers, Alan

It's a question of what software you choose to run on both. Go to the Sonore site and download the quick instructions for the UltraRendu. Then put both the Vortexbox and Ultrarendu on the same software (Roon, Upnp etc). The Rendu should then see the Vortexbox and you should be able to play from there. Both need connected to your internet via Ethernet. And you'll need to download an appropriate controller on your phone, tablet or laptop - depending on how you plan on controlling the software you chose. Cheers, Alan

It's nothing to do with my choosing to see conspiracy or dishonesty. You are peddling a line that at best is mistaken and at worst is biased. No one out there is saying the microrendu, signature rendu or optical rendu is the best SQ they've ever heard. Jason Kennedy, John Darko, Roy/Romaz and others all opined that the Zenith SE server knocked their proverbial socks off. Times have moved on but 15-18 months ago the SE was at the pinnacle of off the shelf SQ and it was a Server not an Endpoint. Sonores decision to focus on Endpoints was a business decision, not a valediction of the scientific principle you are arguing (wrongly!) here. Does hooking up a MicroRendu to an SE further improve the SQ. Nope! Because the SE produces a level of SQ the MicroRendu is incapable of. Nothing wrong with that given the SE costs around 9 times what the MR does. But the point is that the Ethernet isolation into the MR doesn't safeguard against noise from the SE because the SE produces less noise than the MR. And the SE is a server! Wrong again. Many users including myself are getting terrific results with a simple Intel NUC running Audiolinux in RAM (loaded from a USB memory stick). Those (including myself) that are pursuing this to the extreme are finding that an AL NUC endpoint contributes the lions share (60 to 80%) of the SQ but an additional AL NUC server contributes another SQ bump (40 to 20%). Why? Because my friend, everything matters. How are these NUCs connected? Via Ethernet. So refuting the argument you've made numerous times on this forum about the inherent isolation Ethernet offers there is a noticeable SQ bump putting a better server on the other end of that Ethernet run. As for whether Optical is a game changer here well that's all down to the two conversions to and from optical. If you want to claim that the Optical Rendu makes the Zenith, Zenith SE or AL NUC server irrelevant, well then you need to prove it. Not necessarily to me. But to the market in general when you release it. Until then you're making unsubstantiated theoretical claims. Assuming we accept my premise that the SE or AL NUC produces a level of SQ the Rendus are incapable of. Then theoretically do you accept that an optical run into an Optical Rendu might provide total isolation from the server but not to the benefit of the SQ if that SQ was already better? Cheers, Alan