Sonore microRendu

[dallasjustice]

Amir,
You'll prolly need to buy one of these new $400 Swenson PSUs to go with your micro rendu.

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f...%99-linear-power-supply-1-a-28609/#post543155

Don't forget that miscellaneous computer tweeks are an important part of the computer audiophile experience. It's good to know you already have an audiophile approved USB cable. But you'll need an audiophile Ethernet cable too for valid evaluation.

The total cost for any quality audiophile server should never dip below $2,000.

Michael.

 

[Elberoth]

Amir,
You'll prolly need to buy one of these new $400 Swenson PSUs to go with your micro rendu.

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f...%99-linear-power-supply-1-a-28609/#post543155

Don't forget that miscellaneous computer tweeks are an important part of the computer audiophile experience. It's good to know you already have an audiophile approved USB cable. But you'll need an audiophile Ethernet cable too for valid evaluation.

The total cost for any quality audiophile server should never dip below $2,000.

Michael.

I'm not sure this irony is necessary. It cerainly doesn't bring anything to this discussion. In my experience, power supplies make a big difference in sound quality.

AFAIK the microRednu is sold without any PSU. Inserting a cheap SMPS may degrade the system performance (without even connecting anything to it) plus voltage regulation and noise may be less than stellar.

I'm gonna try the microRednu with my UpTone Audio JS-2 PSU when it arrives.

 

[amirm]

I'm not sure this irony is necessary. It cerainly doesn't bring anything to this discussion. In my experience, power supplies make a big difference in sound quality.

AFAIK the microRednu is sold without any PSU. Inserting a cheap SMPS may degrade the system performance (without even connecting anything to it) plus voltage regulation and noise may be less than stellar.

I'm gonna try the microRednu with my UpTone Audio JS-2 PSU when it arrives.

I bought mine with the iFi power supply they are recommending. Whatever that is, it better perform as they state.

I also have lab power supply and the linear power supply sent to me for Regen.

Power "anything" has become the ticket to selling digital systems, components and tweaks. A mere mention of any technology like that will bring on a cheer from audiophiles with nary of a single proof point that something is accomplished with respect to what comes out of the DAC. Mere mention of theory which vast majority of people are not technical enough to understand, seems sufficient as I read the feedback in the above link. Smart buyers would be on guard if no data is provided to back their efficacy. Seeing how YashN posted the CAD drawing of said unit instead of anything relevant to sound quality just amazes me.

 

[jkeny]

I would love to know how some people who admit that they are very prone to listening bias can overcome their negative bias towards products like this?
Sighted listening tests will certainly not change this bias & neither will blind tests - if someone is strongly biased towards hearing no difference they will hear no difference, sighted or blind.

This is a genuine question & not a battle with anyone

 

[amirm]

I would love to know how some people who admit that they are very prone to listening bias can overcome their negative bias towards products like this?
Sighted listening tests will certainly not change this bias & neither will blind tests - if someone is strongly biased towards hearing no difference they will hear no difference, sighted or blind.

This is a genuine question & not a battle with anyone

Very few people who have a negative sentiment towards these products buy them. So the worry is not about them, but the so many people who believe and buy.

Answering anyway, you use the same process your Doctor does to diagnose what what is wrong with you. That is, rely on multiple data points:

1. Theory of operation. Should the device do what it says?
2. Objective measurements. Is there a measured difference?
3. If there is a measured difference, does it rise up to level of audibility?
4. Testing the device blind.

None of this needs to be perfect. It just needs to present a compelling case in combination.

 

[jkeny]

Very few people who have a negative sentiment towards these products buy them. So the worry is not about them, but the so many people who believe and buy.

Answering anyway, you use the same process your Doctor does to diagnose what what is wrong with you. That is, rely on multiple data points:

1. Theory of operation. Should the device do what it says?
2. Objective measurements. Is there a measured difference?
3. If there is a measured difference, does it rise up to level of audibility?
4. Testing the device blind.

None of this needs to be perfect. It just needs to present a compelling case in combination.

I've encountered many instances of doctors telling me or others that there is nothing wrong & only with insistence & perseverance by the sufferer is there anything found (usually by a specialist) & sometimes by the time the problem is uncovered, it is too late to save the patient.

Luckily, this is only audio & not life & death

 

[microstrip]

IMHO the main objective of "technicalities" in current digital design is supplying material to fuel interesting debates in audio forums and attract the attention of consumers. It is why they are needed for marketing. As far as I know no one has been to show parameters in modern decently designed DACs that can be systematically correlated with sound quality. If we want to know how a DAC sounds in our systems we have to listen to it. As we do not have the possibility, time or resources to listen to them all, opinions of trusted people are welcome to narrow our selection. And IMHO the trusted people in high-end affairs are those that in the words of Nelson Pass have shown to "share similar taste" as ours, and also evidenced consistency in the descriptions associated with their opinions along the years.

BTW, is the Sonore microRendu sold in Europe?

 

[Elberoth]

I don't think so. I'm getting mine directly from the US. Not a big deal - shipping from the US takes 3-4 days those days.

 

[amirm]

IMHO the main objective of "technicalities" in current digital design is supplying material to fuel interesting debates in audio forums and attract the attention of consumers. It is why they are needed for marketing. As far as I know no one has been to show parameters in modern decently designed DACs that can be systematically correlated with sound quality. If we want to know how a DAC sounds in our systems we have to listen to it. As we do not have the possibility, time or resources to listen to them all, opinions of trusted people are welcome to narrow our selection.

In the professional and research of Audio Science and Engineering, the matter is completely settled. It is only when you dismiss it all out of hand that you face the quandaries you speak. This has been proven time and time again. It is not a message we want to hear but it is the only verifiable truth that is out there.

And IMHO the trusted people in high-end affairs are those that in the words of Nelson Pass have shown to "share similar taste" as ours, and also evidenced consistency in the descriptions associated with their opinions along the years.

We are back to hero worshiping. Show me a paper that Nelson has published in AES Journal and we can discuss the content of that. Until then, mere mentions of such people carries no weight in any such discussion.

 

[Whatmore]

I would love to know how some people who admit that they are very prone to listening bias can overcome their negative bias towards products like this?
Sighted listening tests will certainly not change this bias & neither will blind tests - if someone is strongly biased towards hearing no difference they will hear no difference, sighted or blind.

This is a genuine question & not a battle with anyone

Should we declare drug tests invalid because no doubt some of the participants strongly believe the drugs won't make a difference ?

 

[jkeny]

Should we declare drug tests invalid because no doubt some of the participants strongly believe the drugs won't make a difference ?

"In medical and psychological research a nocebo is an inert substance or treatment that appears to cause an adverse effect on a patient or participant although it has no known biological effect. This adverse effect has been called a nocebo effect."
"Both nocebo and placebo effects are presumably psychogenic. Rather than being caused by the physiological effect of the treatment, these reactions appear to result from a patient's expectations and perceptions of how the treatment will affect them. However, though they have a psychological origin, both nocebos and placebos may produce measurable physiological changes."

From here

When you have an expectation of hearing no difference, you will be biased towards hearing no difference

 

[Whatmore]

Does that mean we should dismiss the results of drug tests?

 

[jkeny]

Does that mean we should dismiss the results of drug tests?

If it is a test of one person with a negative bias about the drug - absolutely, it is dismissed.
Are you suggesting something else?

 

[opus112]

So the worry is not about them, but the so many people who believe and buy.

Can't see reasonable grounds for worry there - if they believe they'll get their expectation bias delivered to them. A happy customer. This isn't limited to audio, think Haagen-Dazs.

 

[Whatmore]

If it is a test of one person with a negative bias about the drug - absolutely, it is dismissed.
Are you suggesting something else?

Apologies, I thought you were dismissing *all* drug tests and by extension, all audio tests.

 

[jkeny]

Apologies, I thought you were dismissing *all* drug tests and by extension, all audio tests.

No problem

 

[microstrip]

In the professional and research of Audio Science and Engineering, the matter is completely settled. It is only when you dismiss it all out of hand that you face the quandaries you speak. This has been proven time and time again. It is not a message we want to hear but it is the only verifiable truth that is out there.

The abstract of AES meeting W3 - "Perceptual Evaluation of High Resolution Audio" to be held in June 4th in Paris suggests that there is still a lot to settle in digital audio.

Abstract:
This workshop focuses on past measurements and future potential in perceptual evaluation of high resolution audio. Past attempts to assess the audibility of higher resolutions (beyond 44.1 kHz, 16-bit) will be summarized with an overview of results, but the focus of the workshop is on testing and methodology itself. Discussion will include the problems and pitfalls of listening tests and demos and how they might be overcome. We shed some light on the psychoacoustic justifications behind the results of previous experiments including what is known and what is not. We discuss issues in evaluating quality and perception, the structuring of tests, configuration of the testing environment, and analysis of results. Attention will be paid to the choice of test material, the choice of test methodology, and the training of participants. We intend to engage the audience with lively discussion.

http://www.aes.org/events/140/workshops/?ID=4888

We are back to hero worshiping. Show me a paper that Nelson has published in AES Journal and we can discuss the content of that. Until then, mere mentions of such people carries no weight in any such discussion.

Well, just using someone words to refer to common preferences ("share similar taste") is now hero worshiping.

Fortunately, as far as I can see most of our readers seem to use different weighting schemes than you in WBF debates. Most of of us consider that if some designers design SOTA equipments that sound great to a significant group they should have some knowledge on these subjects.

 

[amirm]

The abstract of AES meeting W3 - "Perceptual Evaluation of High Resolution Audio" to be held in June 4th in Paris suggests that there is still a lot to settle in digital audio.

Abstract:
This workshop focuses on past measurements and future potential in perceptual evaluation of high resolution audio. Past attempts to assess the audibility of higher resolutions (beyond 44.1 kHz, 16-bit) will be summarized with an overview of results, but the focus of the workshop is on testing and methodology itself. Discussion will include the problems and pitfalls of listening tests and demos and how they might be overcome. We shed some light on the psychoacoustic justifications behind the results of previous experiments including what is known and what is not. We discuss issues in evaluating quality and perception, the structuring of tests, configuration of the testing environment, and analysis of results. Attention will be paid to the choice of test material, the choice of test methodology, and the training of participants. We intend to engage the audience with lively discussion.

http://www.aes.org/events/140/workshops/?ID=4888

That is your spin, not theirs. This is a narrow topic related to high-resolution audio, not "digital audio." And not DACs as you mentioned.

And that is on top of the fact that you are citing a panel discussion that has not yet occurred! It is scheduled for June in Paris. The description is written by the organizer. It is not the synopsis of the panel discussion.

I know George and Bob Stuart. I can already tell you what they are going to say and it is not at all what started this discussion.

Well, just using someone words to refer to common preferences ("share similar taste") is now hero worshiping.

Throwing a name around with nothing else is exactly that: hero worshipping. There is nothing there to show you have common preferences with Nelson anyway. It is useless name dropping.

Fortunately, as far as I can see most of our readers seem to use different weighting schemes than you in WBF debates. Most of of us consider that if some designers design SOTA equipments that sound great to a significant group they should have some knowledge on these subjects.

And it is that knowledge that you need to quote and put in your post, not mere mention of their name. No one learns anything from name dropping. It just serves to cheapen these discussions.

 

[YashN]

I'm not sure this irony is necessary. It cerainly doesn't bring anything to this discussion. In my experience, power supplies make a big difference in sound quality.

Absolutely, and too many manufacturers do a poor job of optimising the power supplies. Fortunately, we have a host of third-party solution

AFAIK the microRednu is sold without any PSU. Inserting a cheap SMPS may degrade the system performance (without even connecting anything to it) plus voltage regulation and noise may be less than stellar.

I'm gonna try the microRednu with my UpTone Audio JS-2 PSU when it arrives.

You could also consider the new Uptone Audio UltraCap LPS-1 to go with it (need to check the output capabilities).

 

[YashN]

Swenson's theory behind the regeneration of the USB signal (Regen) is that a USB receiver (in the USB audio device) that receives a better formed USB signal (better signal integrity or SI) has less processing work to do as a result of handling the better SI USB data signal & therefore introduces less noise onto the ground plane of the USB audio device affecting the audio clocks, as above.

I'm not sure I saw John S. describe it as affecting the audio clocks but rather he wrote that the increased processing at the USB PHY caused power and current spikes affecting the D/A at the DAC chip. Hence he worked on the power-related noise profile of that USB PHY section in the Regen (among other things).

I appreciate you sharing your additional info based on your own experiments, very interesting.

At least you understood correctly where the theory of operation was focused, contrary to some who claimed recently that it was based on asynch USB re-sending data (LOL at that!).