Do different renders matter?

Guy,

Like many here I have played with most of the software players (MBP into the nDAC via hiface and now INT202). For a long time I couldn’t really hear any differences. The only player I thought was slightly better was Pure Music but I wasn’t 100% sure.

Since my starting point I have upgraded from 82 to 552 and Fraimed and optimised. Now I find the sonic differences much more obvious. So my experience tells me that the differences are there but it takes a fair bit of resolution pick it out. But why the difference between players, as the INT202 is reclocking (AFAIK) AND the nDAC is also re-clocking?

I have chosen Audirvana as the best sound by some margin (with latest INT driver, optimised Audirvana settings and optimised OS settings). The main chappie who is writing Audirvana (Damien) is open about his approach, in fact the software is open source. For him it seems to be all about reducing the processor load and most importantly the processor load that synchronises in any way with the sound production activities. So, by implication, sound differences between players may be linked to rf noise from the computer reaching the DAC. You use an optical connection to the V-link don’t you? So maybe that stops the computer noise and hence you don’t hear the difference in players.

That’s my (naive?) take on it.

Gav

Hi Guy and Gav!

I'm following this type of conversation on 'Computer Audiophile', it's quite interesting.

I'm hearing differences between Pure Music/Fidelia/Amarra/Decibel/Audirvana, but I can't sort them.

Still need to get my V-Link.

Maybe Naim should write a music player, with no options or preferences, and offer it for Windows, OSX, and Linux. Totally optimized, with an iPhone app to control it.

Dave

That's just spoiling all the fun though!

Fun?  I find comparing different software to be tedious and was under the impression that the new computer audio paradigm was supposed to free us from all the debateable "differences" in getting digits off from a HD.  I completely "get" that different dacs can have a great effect on the sound but when it comes to equalization of the digital signal with different computer software I am less than thrilled about having to compare them all and declare a winner.  I suppose that is why I am such a big fan of a streaming approach to computer based music systems and find the "fit and forget" so refreshing and honestly so much better sonically. 

With all due respect, I don't have that kind of money, and it's not what I need, given the situation.

I already have a MacBook, which I need to use every day, got a great sounding dac from Rega, for just around $1000, and Naim has the knowhow to write a great piece of music player software.

This isn't my main system, just a system to listen to while working on my computer in the den.

It may not be in Naim's interest to do so, but I know they could write a great piece of software. I don't want or need the HDX, under the circumstances.

Dave

I suspect the streaming approach does not free us of all the variables which cause 'debateable "differences" in getting digits off from a HD'. We will just have to learn to see it as "fun" and "exciting".

Hi Gav

Very interesting and makes perfect sense to me - I was using my UnitiQuite to gauge difference and reasonable if far from highly resolving little KEF speakers because it is the office system. And I am as you say isolating the UQ DAC from RFI by using an optical connection - so it would seem that my set-up is masking any differences or at least not of the level where I need concern over them. 

Whereas the V-Link makes an obvious difference, I'm just not hearing what these other software packages bring to the party. This is good news for me as if what I can get from my UQ is about as good at it can get then I can just listen to the music and forget about trying lots of software packages. 

Hi Realhifi 

Yes I agree - it is just with other forum members suggesting better rendering gave better sound I couldn't help but wonder if I could use an inexpensive better renderer. Seems even if I could find one then I need to be at a higher level than my UQ/KEF set-up to hear the benefits. Perhaps Ethernet in to the UQ would be as good as it gets, but I haven't got a UPnP server so not an option for me at this moment - plus would the UQ play AIFF files? 

Hi Dave

I don't think Naim could do that as they would need to maintain it - every time Apple does a major version change one or more of my third party apps seem to need an update. So Naim would have to play that game too. Also Fidelia and others just won't run on my platform as I need a universal binary so it would be lot to ask of Naim. However, if they could do it then, of course, I'd use it.  

Hi Lhau

HDX wouldn't work for me as I don't want to rip music to it - I've already got my library ripped to AIFF and it is not possible to load these on to the HDX because 1) it doesn't support it and 2) I've got more than 1TB of music data. I could use HDX SSD if it can access files through file sharing rather than UPnP and it was happy to play AIFF, but that is a very expensive option for me. 

Many thanks to everyone for input so far, Guy

I think if the audiophile is going to start saying you need RFI protectors on ethernet cable as it makes it 'sound better' then one must surely consider the software delivery system as being critical in musical reproduction

Are RFI suppressors on USB a good idea? 

I'll try it and see

Didn't know Ethernet cables were directional - I can't see any difference between one end and the other. USB cables are directional - the A to B one I use is. 

Is the general consensus that through a UQ that you won't hear much difference between the different renders? 

All the best, Guy

Gary - just a litte point, RFI sinks on Ethernet cable have nothing to do with the cable but they inhibit RF affecting the sesnistve electronics attached.

Finally Ethernet cable's are definitely not directional as they are by definition by directional (i know this was tongue in cheek but) but they come in two formats, straight through and cross over. A lot of consumer network devices sense the cable used and try and adjust automatically and mostly get it right, but essentially devices including routers connected to a switch use a cross over cable. A router (with no inbuilt switch) connected to a PC would use a straight through cable. As I say these days often the devices try and self configure, but if things don't work and you are scratching your head this is something to check.

Simon

if the renderer is also in charge of outputting the digital signal, yes the renderer would "make a difference".

Given how playlists, art and metadata are handled, a renderer can affect those functions as well.

If you want to stream pictures and videos as well the renderer is even more important.

-Patrick

Thanks Patrick

From my perspective I'm only really interested in the sound quality - I'm more than happy with artist, album title, song title, year, duration - I do use genre and may use rating - most formats seem OK with these fields. I never use playlists and never really thought about pictures or videos.  For me it is all about music. 

At the moment I use iTunes and Sonus as my main renderers feed UQ and Naim DAC and wondering if a change would be worth it - yes I know the Sonus has high jitter, but I can all but eliminate this by re-clocking. Would replacing the Sonus with a NDX really sound very much better? I'm still unsure why it would, but I guess I'd need to try it. 

All the best, Guy

Guy,

I know where you’re coming from with your questions and interest in the NDX. Maybe most people who frequent this part of the forum have already moved from computer/DAC to NDX and hence you’re not getting many replies! For me, I’m still really enjoying INT202 into nDAC and will bide my time until some kind of ‘ND555’ gets realised.

In terms of your quest for better sound, I have a point to make:

I seem to recall you writing that in your experience USB sticks produce the best sound into the nDAC. This is absolutely not the case for me. I recently took my INT202 out of the system for a week to get one of the RCA-outs mod’ed to BNC. During the week I ran with a few different USB sticks into both front and rear ports. This was an obvious step down in sound quality, in all departments.

Originally, I swapped from hiface to INT due to a desire to reach USB quality. This got me very close but I was annoyed to find USB sticks still sounded maybe a tiny bit better. I finally surpassed USB SQ when I swapped over from a cheapo digital coax to a DC1. Since then, with a better firewire cable and software optimisations there is simply no contest.

I’m not trying to say the INT is the best thing since sliced bread. You’ve done the comparison and prefer the V-Link - that’s fine. I just get the feeling that something may not be quite as right as it could be if you find USB sticks to be top of the tree.

I’m not sure that optical is the very best way to input music data to the nDAC. No clever theory or extensive testing here, it’s just reading posts on computeraudiophile for quite a long time, I get the impression that there’s a significant majority who find this to be the case, with a wide range of equipment (not everyone though, I know that). Also, naim have not taken up optical as their optimised connection method – and those guys seem to know a thing or two. It’s as though you win with optical because you stop noise coming through from the source but you lose because you rely on optical-to-electrical conversion within the DAC which perhaps brings a new set of problems.

Food for thought, that's all.

Gav

Guido,

Yes my points might not apply to you, but they are relevant.  By "playlists" I mean how the various components handle the selections made on the control point.  I am not talking about an iTunes Playlist or whatever, e.g. when you select an entire album to play, does the control point send the whole album to the renderer or does it maintain a constant connection using stop events etc....

Maybe you have mentioned this but.... why do you use Sonos or iTunes when you own the Qute?  Or why do you use a Qute when you have the Sonos or Mac digi out?  Why not straight to the DAC?

It seems you have some extra stuff going on you dont need???

-patrick

Hi Patrick, Gav 

>  Why do you use Sonos or iTunes when you own the Qute?  Or why do you use a Qute when you have the Sonos or Mac digi out?  Why not straight to the DAC?

I have two systems - Main and Office

Main system from digital perspective is

Naim DAC/555PS/282-SC/200/Allaes

Office system is 

Naim UQ/Small Kef speakers

My office is upstairs with a wired networked; a Juniper router connects it to the Internet and Cisco switch proves network ports. The audio components on my office network are Naim UQ, an old Apple (PowerMac) Music Server [AMS] running iTunes and holding my ripped music. UQ can play iRadio through the network, but not my ripped music. A Musical Fidelity V-Link connects AMS to UQ; it sounds very much better than the AMS optical output. I use a high quality glass optical cable between V-Link and UQ. I tried Chord Coax, but preferred optical. I'm happy with the sound in my office. However, I read using alternative renders to iTunes could boost the sound quality. I tried alternatives to iTunes, but couldn't hear any advantage (however what I can try is limited by my old computer so Fidelia will not run for example).

My main system is downstair and there is no wired network. To play music stored on the AMS, I have several ways. Sonus is most straightforward. Connect Sonus bridge to my office network; use CIFS to access music share on AMS. Sonus player next to Naim DAC connects wirelessly to Sonus bridge and music plays. Sonus player to Naim DAC is Chord Coax.

Other ways to play music through Naim DAC are USB stick (gives best results) or MacBook Pro [MBP] with music on internal disc  or iTunes share. MBP sounds better than Sonus if I use V-Link, but poor if I use MBP optical out.

Using Sonus means I don't need the MBP. It is the most convenient way to play music stored upstairs on my system downstairs. Music is on tap by simply selecting from an iPad app. 

So I use two renders. Downstairs is Sonus. Upstairs is iTunes. 

Upstairs system is fine (OK KEF speakers could be better). Using AMS connected directly to UQ wasn't awful, but using V-Link makes a big difference, as would hiFace or INT 202. I put this down to these devices eliminating jitter. V-Link uses a TI chip with a better spec and reputation than Apple's cheap Cirrus Logic. As you gather I dislike Apple's optical out - I could replace it, but plan to retire AMS at some stage and move to Vortexbox (this will make UPnP to UQ an option).  

Downstairs Sonus has same Cirrus Logic chip as Apple and may lose out to USB sticks because of this. No problem: I can upgrade Sonus and virtually remove jitter. So do I do this? Assuming all renders are equal, playback through Naim DAC should be as good as a USB stick. I could replace Sonus with NDX to feed Naim DAC, but it is expensive and will only have an advantage if its rendering is better than Sonus. I've had problems with Naim wirelessly (probably my fault), whereas Sonus seems bullet proof. I like Sonus interface. However, Using a USB stick means the rendering is taking place in the Naim DAC so I wondered if Naim had a superior renderer to Sonus and this accounted for the improvement, it wasn't just down to jitter. 

Gav - you use a better system than me. You'll hear the INT202 at its best. I compared it with V-Link through my UQ. INT202 is galvanically isolated so takes advantage of Coax/BNC. V-Link relies on optical to eliminate computer noise. Firewire is an inherently better interface than USB as well. 

Patrick - I now understand what you mean by playlist. I had assumed that data was rendered in real-time, but I can see an advantage in converting a whole track (or album) and then streaming the PCM. Is this how the Naim renderer works?  

Many thanks to both of you for comments and help, Guy