Sonore's microrendu is out - the first audiophile microcomputer?

amirm · May 3, 2016

adyc said:
If you want data, don't you think it is the best to ask them directly? If they can't provide, feel free not to buy this product. Given that the motherboard is customized, no fan and off the shelf nosiy switching power supply, it is very hard to imagine that it is noiser than a general purpose computer crunching intensive calculations. How much better I am not sure.

But that is not the metric that determines audio fidelity. Imagine two scenarios:

1. A very busy computer with tons and tons of activity. And let's assume this bleeds into the audio output channel in some manner. The very busy and highly chaotic manner of the computer activity will appear as noise whether induced as jitter or noise alone. So your digital system may go from having 100 db S/N to say, 90 db S/N.

2. A very quiet computer that services different tasks such as receiving packet traffic over Ethernet, USB service interrupts, system timer, etc. All of these events will be in 100s to 1000s of times/sec -- right in the audible band! And without noise to mask them, you will have correlated distortion that is far, far more audible that pure noise. A 100 db S/N ratio with spikes that rise up 10 db will be worse than system #1.

What you want for audio hardware is a system that has constant load and hence constant/random imprint on its audio interface. A quiet system with jumps in activity is the opposite of that.

This is all of course assumes there is such bleeding into the audio interface. With good USB input on a DAC, these differences vanish to levels well below audibility.

BTW, making things small is often the enemy of making things good. With small size, components get placed together and more noise bleeds/couples into adjacent component. I for example cringe at the Ethernet Jack being so close to USB on this device. Why did it need to be so small? Did they start with Raspberry Pi or some other platform like it???

Of course, human nature being what it is, will lead one to think that this little box must be more quiet and hence, that is what is heard subjectivity. We need data to get past that bias so that we can evaluate the device fairly.

I will go ahead and buy one to measure but I sure like to see the manufacturer offer such measurements. If they have it but requires us asking, there is something wrong there.

Again, this may be a good/superior solution. The discussion here is to not give benefit of doubt that goes against how the technology works.

MadFloyd · May 3, 2016

YashN said:
$640 is the correct price, not "$64000"

Ahhh, that makes a lot more sense.

microstrip · May 3, 2016

YashN said:
Wrong. The fundamental purpose is to be able to crunch data while maximising signal-to-noise ratio in your system.

If you just want to crunch data without paying particular attention to SQ, then use any computer or any SBC depending on the configuration.

You will never be able to persuade those who think that current digital implementations are perfect according to their own metrics of the benefit of such devices. However those, as me and most WBF members, who believe that the sound quality of CD is still perfectible, cab be very interested in your and others opinions about its sound quality and your evaluations. Thanks for bringing the subject to this forum. IMHO it seems a very interesting device - solving the problems of the digital interface closer to the DAC seems a cost effective and engaging option. But now we must wait for the devices!

BTW, considering the excellent signal to noise ratios of current digital implementations, IMHO signal to noise ratio is not a good indicator of digital subjective sound quality.

Do you think that this device will have drivers to connect to a Devialet?

amirm · May 3, 2016

YashN said:
Wrong. The fundamental purpose is to be able to crunch data while maximising signal-to-noise ratio in your system.

Signal to noise ratio is an objective metric. So hopefully that data will be coming our way to validate the device.

thedudeabides · May 3, 2016

I really don't understand why someone who wants to make this forum aware of a potential new and exciting product is being treated in the way this individual is being treated.

IMHO, on the surface, Amir's posts come across to me of being disrespectful at best and accusatory / over critical at worse.

Why the attitude Amir?

This forum is supposed to be fun and not become someone's personal battleground.

I don't get it.

Elberoth · May 3, 2016

I'm gonna evaluate it in my system. Amir's findings (or the lack of) isn't gonna change my mind one bit. Over the years, I have learned to trust my ears.

MadFloyd · May 3, 2016

Elberoth said:
I'm gonna evaluate it in my system. Amir's findings (or the lack of) isn't gonna change my mind one bit. Over the years, I have learned to trust my ears.

Good for you, Adam. Please let us all know your impressions.

microstrip · May 3, 2016

Elberoth said:
I'm gonna evaluate it in my system. Amir's findings (or the lack of) isn't gonna change my mind one bit. Over the years, I have learned to trust my ears.

Great! Are you going to listen to it with the Trinity DAC?

BobShermanEsq · May 3, 2016

thedudeabides said:
I really don't understand why someone who wants to make this forum aware of a potential new and exciting product is being treated in the way this individual is being treated.

IMHO, on the surface, Amir's posts come across to me of being disrespectful at best and accusatory / over critical at worse.

Why the attitude Amir?

This forum is supposed to be fun and not become someone's personal battleground.

I don't get it.

Fun... Only for certain people and products.

jkeny · May 3, 2016

Elberoth said:
I'm gonna evaluate it in my system. Amir's findings (or the lack of) isn't gonna change my mind one bit. Over the years, I have learned to trust my ears.

Here, here! Yes interested in your impressions irrespective of other noise on this thread. I, for one, am fairly sure that electrical noise from computers getting into connected digital audio devices is the main source of SQ degradation & tackling such noise sources at source makes a lot of sense. AFAIK, the microrendu uses linear regulators instead of DC-DC converters as most motherboards do. I suspect this accounts for a significant element of such electrical noise as when I & others have replaced such motherboard buck converters with battery power the improvement in sonics was palpable. There are some other tweaks I have gleaned have been applied inside the microrendu along the lines of special care with USB signal handling & again I know from my own experiments that the quality of the USB signal seems to be a significant factor in SQ.

BobShermanEsq · May 3, 2016

jkeny said:
Here, here! Yes interested in your impressions irrespective of other noise on this thread

The initial impressions are very positive and the concept ticks off all the right boxes. This is a product built by people who know what they are doing... Guess this bothers some individuals. smh...

jkeny · May 3, 2016

BobShermanEsq said:
The initial impressions are very positive and the concept ticks off all the right boxes. This is a product built by people who know what they are doing... Guess this bothers some individuals. smh...

Yes, I wish I knew everything like my betters do & then I could make definitive statements but I am trapped by feelings of my own fallibility & must equivocate & rely on my senses & gut instinct to guide me through this world.
Oh, why is life so cruel?

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

amirm · May 3, 2016

BobShermanEsq said:
The initial impressions are very positive and the concept ticks off all the right boxes. This is a product built by people who know what they are doing... Guess this bothers some individuals. smh...

Who does it bother? If it does what it says, it would be wonderful. Why would anyone complain?

BobShermanEsq · May 3, 2016

amirm said:
Who does it bother? If it does what it says, it would be wonderful. Why would anyone complain?

Amir,
You comments are a bit curious, I do not think this is the measurement forum... Why the push back? Do not see this on other discussions. You mentioned you were going to get one to measure, but did not mention listening to it. What's wrong with this picture...

amirm · May 3, 2016

BobShermanEsq said:
Amir,
You comments are a bit curious, I do not think this is the measurement forum... Why the push back? Do not see this on other discussions. You mentioned you were going to get one to measure, but did not mention listening to it. What's wrong with this picture...

Well, it just happens that I know what goes into these products. I implemented the first TCP/IP networking stack 30 years ago. Anytime I see an Ethernet connection on a device and someone says "quiet and audiophile" I cringe. Big time. There is a ton of code executed on behalf of every packet of traffic coming in. Computer architecture is my expertise -- both hardware and software. So I chime in when I hear people with less experience creating technical theories as to why they have accomplished this and that which goes against how things actually work.

Remember, they didn't build this product and just said it sounds better. They say they did X, Y and Z and that results in technical improvements. If so, then there should be before/after measurements that show these technical improvements. If there aren't any, and they are throwing these technologies into the product to make it sell better, then I will chime in to say "wait a second."

Some 15 years ago when I was at Microsoft, my group acquire Pacific Microsonics (makers of HDCD). I then had the pleasure of having "Professor" Keith Johnson report to me as a consultant for a year or so. I remember having him in my office and asked him what can we do in PCs to make them sound better. He said, "always have them do something; never stop and start."

Now read back what I said a page or two on why you don't want to have a computer that is "quiet" but then jumps up here and there to do something.

My question back to you is why is this bothersome to you? You rather know less about how technology works?

BobShermanEsq · May 3, 2016

amirm said:
Well, it just happens that I know what goes into these products. I implemented the first TCP/IP networking stack 30 years ago. Anytime I see an Ethernet connection on a device and someone says "quiet and audiophile" I cringe. Big time. There is a ton of code executed on behalf of every packet of traffic coming in. Computer architecture is my expertise -- both hardware and software. So I chime in when I hear people with less experience creating technical theories as to why they have accomplished this and that which goes against how things actually work.

Remember, they didn't build this product and just said it sounds better. They say they did X, Y and Z and that results in technical improvements. If so, then there should be before/after measurements that show these technical improvements. If there aren't any, and they are throwing these technologies into the product to make it sell better, then I will chime in to say "wait a second."

Some 15 years ago when I was at Microsoft, my group acquire Pacific Microsonics (makers of HDCD). I then had the pleasure of having "Professor" Keith Johnson report to me as a consultant for a year or so. I remember having him in my office and asked him what can we do in PCs to make them sound better. He said, "always have them do something; never stop and start."

Now read back what I said a page or two on why you don't want to have a computer that is "quiet" but then jumps up here and there to do something.

My question back to you is why is this bothersome to you? You rather know less about how technology works?

Thanks for you opinion... Everyone can learn new things, even you.

As for me...

jkeny · May 3, 2016

amirm said:
Well, it just happens that I know what goes into these products. I implemented the first TCP/IP networking stack 30 years ago. Anytime I see an Ethernet connection on a device and someone says "quiet and audiophile" I cringe. Big time. There is a ton of code executed on behalf of every packet of traffic coming in. Computer architecture is my expertise -- both hardware and software. So I chime in when I hear people with less experience creating technical theories as to why they have accomplished this and that which goes against how things actually work.

Remember, they didn't build this product and just said it sounds better. They say they did X, Y and Z and that results in technical improvements. If so, then there should be before/after measurements that show these technical improvements. If there aren't any, and they are throwing these technologies into the product to make it sell better, then I will chime in to say "wait a second."

Some 15 years ago when I was at Microsoft, my group acquire Pacific Microsonics (makers of HDCD). I then had the pleasure of having "Professor" Keith Johnson report to me as a consultant for a year or so. I remember having him in my office and asked him what can we do in PCs to make them sound better. He said, "always have them do something; never stop and start."

Now read back what I said a page or two on why you don't want to have a computer that is "quiet" but then jumps up here and there to do something.

My question back to you is why is this bothersome to you? You rather know less about how technology works?

So let's examine your scenario, Amir & start with a question:
- If the PS network that supports the computer hardware is designed to inject negligible reactive noise on the motherboard's ground plane, does your scenario still hold? (In other words it handles transient current draws without kicking back noise into the ground)

jkeny · May 4, 2016

jkeny said:
So let's examine your scenario, Amir & start with a question:
- If the PS network that supports the computer hardware is designed to inject negligible reactive noise on the motherboard's ground plane, does your scenario still hold? (In other words it handles transient current draws without kicking back noise into the ground)

So, I guess the answer is no, then. For a start, the idea of keeping a modern high-powered computer constantly busy is both a foolish & wasteful goal. I can see the reason for it - to keep current demands as constant as possible (because each transient current demand causes a spike of noise on the ground plane) but this is a foolish goal considering the way standard operating systems control their own scheduling & interrupts. It's foolish to think that this random & uncontrollable current demand profile is going to be somehow changed by swamping it with a high processor load.

This thinking admits to the fact that current demands cause noise injection but fails to address the issue head-on by designing a power distribution network which is non-reactive & injects little or no noise into the motherboard ground plane when servicing transient current demands.

Furthermore a recognition of where this noise is of critical importance to computer audio & an attempt to isolate the ground plane of this area from any unavoidable noise injection I would imagine is part of the MicroRendu design approach.

BobShermanEsq · May 4, 2016

jkeny said:
So, I guess the answer is no, then. For a start, the idea of keeping a modern high-powered computer constantly busy is both a foolish & wasteful goal. I can see the reason for it - to keep current demands as constant as possible (because each transient current demand causes a spike of noise on the ground plane) but this is a foolish goal considering the way standard operating systems control their own scheduling & interrupts. It's foolish to think that this random & uncontrollable current demand profile is going to be somehow changed by swamping it with a high processor load.

This thinking admits to the fact that current demands cause noise injection but fails to address the issue head-on by designing a power distribution network which injects little or no noise into the motherboard ground plane. Furthermore a recognition of where this noise is of critical importance to computer audio & an attempt to isolate the ground plane of this area from any unavoidable noise injection I would imagine is part of the MicroRendu design approach.

Makes perfect sense John. The key word is foolish IMO, and some people would rather not think of themselves as fools.

jkeny · May 4, 2016

BobShermanEsq said:
Makes perfect sense John. The key word is foolish IMO, and some people would rather not think of themselves as fools.

It really is just a case of following the reasoning behind Keith Johnson's suggestion with a logic that considers the cause of the problem & the best approach to treating it correctly at source rather than trying to cover up a water leak by flooding the area with water.

Sonore's microrendu is out - the first audiophile microcomputer?

Banned

Member Sponsor

VIP/Donor

Banned

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor

Member Sponsor

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor

Well-Known Member

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor

Banned

Well-Known Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor

Well-Known Member

Industry Expert, Member Sponsor

Similar threads