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

[jkeny]

Nonsense. Before you buy the product, you have no way of judging its sound. Listening to someone pontificate what they hear or imagine to have heard, gives you no idea of the product's real capability.

Evaluating others impressions of the sound along with a valid theory to it's working (especially as I already have experience of this myself) allows me to shortlist products which are worth auditioning for myself, if there is a worthwhile return policy. Something that can easily be done with most audio products apart from speakers. This is the normal & usual approach most people take to the hobby

Measurements however, shine a bright light on the product, exposing whether it has done something and whether that something is good or bad. In the case of John's other product, the Regen, based on testing by multiple parties, the Regen shows to degrade the output of the DAC measurably. It is perfect example of someone's theory of some tweak being perfectly wrong.

Nonsense. Measurements tell you little to nothing about how a product will sound - you have really gone down the rabbit hole on this. Furthermore, are you now trying to make the case that the measured differences of the Regen, which you admitted were inaudible, makes for a product which is detrimental? What I'm suggesting is that you are limited in your testing by the very bias that you bring to the measurements.

So what? How do I ascertain the validity of your results? With measurements, others can and did duplicate the flaws in the device.

I don't really care how you ascertain the validity of my results - to you the Regen makes no difference & that's fine but don't try to make that a universal conclusion that applies to everybody - your measurements are of no consequence to the sound.

Not at all although you talking about restricted point of view cracks me up . Where you not my best friend when I was passing some of those critical listening tests? Nothing was wrong with my viewpoint then, when I took on objecitivists. Now that I show that I call both sides to the table to demonstrate effectiveness of their opinions all of a sudden I have restricted point of view?

When people are being ridiculous in their viewpoints, I call it as such & the "jangly keys" people were being ridiculous as you now are. So I'm not your friend & I'm not your enemy - I'm interested in truth, as I see it with the possibility that I'm wrong & if so will correct as a result.

No, I am not biased that way. I am after engineering excellence. I actually accept measured improvements that are NOT audible. The engineer in me wants to applaud better design.

But you have to give me something to hang my hat on. A flawed theory that in implementation actually damages the DAC's measured fidelity is not my friend. That is yours, shows an unbiased point of view on your part.

How is the theory flawed? As I asked you before, show your credentials about VLSI design & PDN considerations along with the noise budget in the design if you want to convince me & others that you actually have the chops to be able to claim "flawed theory". You have not done this despite my asking you many times so I'm forming the opinion that you have no experience at this engineering level.

You argue with words. You need to argue with data. Somehow you think engineering and fidelity discussions can be data-free. Please advocate that to someone even more stupid than me.

I don't need to present data to advocate a position which theory & my experience tells me is correct. For a start, this is not the measurements section & the lack of data does not make it wrong - a typical simplistic logic trick attempted by measurists.

 

[amirm]

Yes sir... People are only only allowed to worship you.

 

[amirm]

Evaluating others impressions of the sound along with a valid theory to it's working (especially as I already have experience of this myself) allows me to shortlist products which are worth auditioning for myself, if there is a worthwhile return policy. Something that can easily be done with most audio products apart from speakers. This is the normal & usual approach most people take to the hobby

Nonsense. Measurements tell you little to nothing about how a product will sound - you have really gone down the rabbit hole on this. Furthermore, are you now trying to make the case that the measured differences of the Regen, which you admitted were inaudible, makes for a product which is detrimental? What I'm suggesting is that you are limited in your testing by the very bias that you bring to the measurements.

I don't really care how you ascertain the validity of my results - to you the Regen makes no difference & that's fine but don't try to make that a universal conclusion that applies to everybody - your measurements are of no consequence to the sound.


When people are being ridiculous in their viewpoints, I call it as such & the "jangly keys" people were being ridiculous as you now are. So I'm not your friend & I'm not your enemy - I'm interested in truth, as I see it with the possibility that I'm wrong & if so will correct as a result.

How is the theory flawed? As I asked you before, show your credentials about VLSI design & PDN considerations along with the noise budget in the design if you want to convince me & others that you actually have the chops to be able to claim "flawed theory". You have not done this despite my asking you many times so I'm forming the opinion that you have no experience at this engineering level.

I don't need to present data to advocate a position which theory & my experience tells me is correct. For a start, this is not the measurements section & the lack of data does not make it wrong - a typical simplistic logic trick attempted by measurists.

John, a product is announced in this thread saying it delivers perfect USB performance. Explain to me what leads you to believe that.

 

[jkeny]

John, a product is announced in this thread saying it delivers perfect USB performance. Explain to me what leads you to believe that.

I've given my reasons - my own similar experience in this area & the well known concept of Power Distribution Network as well as the audible affect of a previous product of Swenson's, the Regen, based on the same concepts.

What you haven't provided, despite my asking you many times now, is some relevant engineering detail of the motherboards & VLSI you stated that you were involved in designing. Your continued avoidance in answering this can only lead the readers to the conclusion that you don;t have this experience.

What you have provided is some stock audio measurements & again I asked you to prove your claims - that your measurements show audibility in this area. I asked you to produce measurements of the analogue output of a DAC which correlate to audibility in a USB DAC with/without the Intona in-line (presuming there is an audible difference).
Again something you are reluctant to do or even address.

Amir, without demonstrating that you have the necessary knowledge in this area & can demonstrate the necessary correlation between measurements & audibility - all your objections amount to is a lot of hand-waving

In fact your ridiculous counter argument about keeping a computer busy being the way to better sound from a PC hits on exactly the same theory as Swenson - it's the reactivity of PDN & the ground noise injected on the motherboard that is the underlying reason except Swenson takes the obvious logical next step & treats the reactive PDN instead of trying to band-aid the issue as you suggested ala Keith Johnson.

So in fact you argued exactly the same as Swenson but didn't recognise that's what you were doing & thought you were arguing against his theory.

 

[microstrip]

(...)

No, I am not biased that way. I am after engineering excellence. I actually accept measured improvements that are NOT audible. The engineer in me wants to applaud better design.

(...)

IMHO this is the critical point in our divergence. As soon as someone is persuaded that the improvements are not audible he is free to use any metrics to look for engineering excellence, forgetting the most important aspect for users- sound quality. IMHO correlation is the base of audio studies, engineering excellence is a very interesting but too personnel issue if it is not related to sound quality or perceptible aspects such as value for money or reliability.

A straight question - do you consider that all the DACs you have measured that have only shown measured differences bellow the audibility threshold sound the same in all systems?

 

[Steve Bruzonsky]

I’ve been using the HDPlex linear power supply (that I bought with my CAPSv4 Pipeline,from Small Green Computer), using the 9VDC connection, for the Microrendu, which works fine but does run towards the hot side (the Microrendu accepts from 6 – 9VDC). As I purchased this power supply with my CAPSv4, the 9VDC output is not adjustable down to 7.5VDC, as is one available direct from HDPlex. (Small Green Computer had the option of purchasing the more traditional and relatively inexpensive (about $60) iFi Power Supply, which I understand runs at either 7 or 7.5VDC, such that the Microrendu does ot get hot. Also,Sonore also has its top of the line Signature Series Power Supply for the Microrendu to optimize performance – “only $1,399: http://rendu.sonore.us/signature-series-power-supply.html)

Last night I decided to use the CAPSv4 again to verify how the Microrendu sounds in comparison. I played the 4XDSD “8 Ensembles in 1 Bit” from www.nativedsd.com. This album is great demo material with some outstanding classical and acappela! I previously ascertained that the Microrendu sounded at least as good as the CAPSv4, with the Microrendu perhaps being more 3d on instrument and voice placement, both using the same HDPlex power supply. Frankly, on using the CAPSv4 again, I was somewhat shocked – the Microrendu simply is clearly appreciably more 3D and overall sounds appreciably better, not just somewhat, than the CAPSv4! I heard this on the classical instrumental and the acapella!

So I decided what the hell, its only money, and I just ordered the Signature Series Power Supply for the Microrendu!

By the way, I have setup for a friend and used several times in the past few months the Aurender X100 for a friend! The Aurender sounds nice, but not better than my CAPSv4 - and certainly the Microrendu using the HDPlex LPS beats it hands down as well!

By the way, my Theta Casablanca IV SSP (with 3 external Theta Generation 8 Series 3 DACs) runs Dirac Live, so I do not require a PC running Dirac in my system!

 

[jkeny]

I’ve been using the HDPlex linear power supply (that I bought with my CAPSv4 Pipeline,from Small Green Computer), using the 9VDC connection, for the Microrendu, which works fine but does run towards the hot side (the Microrendu accepts from 6 – 9VDC). As I purchased this power supply with my CAPSv4, the 9VDC output is not adjustable down to 7.5VDC, as is one available direct from HDPlex. (Small Green Computer had the option of purchasing the more traditional and relatively inexpensive (about $60) iFi Power Supply, which I understand runs at either 7 or 7.5VDC, such that the Microrendu does ot get hot. Also,Sonore also has its top of the line Signature Series Power Supply for the Microrendu to optimize performance – “only $1,399: http://rendu.sonore.us/signature-series-power-supply.html)

Last night I decided to use the CAPSv4 again to verify how the Microrendu sounds in comparison. I played the 4XDSD “8 Ensembles in 1 Bit” from www.nativedsd.com. This album is great demo material with some outstanding classical and acappela! I previously ascertained that the Microrendu sounded at least as good as the CAPSv4, with the Microrendu perhaps being more 3d on instrument and voice placement, both using the same HDPlex power supply. Frankly, on using the CAPSv4 again, I was somewhat shocked – the Microrendu simply is clearly appreciably more 3D and overall sounds appreciably better, not just somewhat, than the CAPSv4! I heard this on the classical instrumental and the acapella!

So I decided what the hell, its only money, and I just ordered the Signature Series Power Supply for the Microrendu!

By the way, I have setup for a friend and used several times in the past few months the Aurender X100 for a friend! The Aurender sounds nice, but not better than my CAPSv4 - and certainly the Microrendu using the HDPlex LPS beats it hands down as well!

Hey, Steve, thanks for bringing this thread back to reality & reporting your listening impressions - that's what it's all about

Yes, deeper soundstage (not wider) is often the result of reduced noise/better signal quality in the USB connection. I don't know exactly what this psychoacoustic effect is due to - is it simply a reduction in the previously unnoticed background noise so that the sounds come from a quieter background & tail off more naturally, thereby giving more natural, solidity to the sound and/or is it that this reduction in noise is reducing the jitter in the signal leading to a better rendering of sounds?

As I said before I & others have experimented with these areas & improvements to motherboard powering schemes, particularly when splitting into individual power domains have made substantial audible differences - moving from single Smps to LPS & then to individual LPSes & finally to individual LiFePO4 battery powered sections of motherboards all showed incremental audible improvements.

I suspect that the USB hub chip used in the Regen is part of the MicroRendu & when I tested the Regen with different power it made an audible difference but the big leap in sonics came when powering the USB hub chip & it's clock directly from LiFePO4 battery. BTW, there are some reports on Audioasylum of users who followed my Regen battery tweak.

As you improve the PS powering the MicroRendu, I suspect you will hear audible improvements.

 

[amirm]

I've given my reasons - my own similar experience in this area & the well known concept of Power Distribution Network as well as the audible affect of a previous product of Swenson's, the Regen, based on the same concepts.

What you haven't provided, despite my asking you many times now, is some relevant engineering detail of the motherboards & VLSI you stated that you were involved in designing. Your continued avoidance in answering this can only lead the readers to the conclusion that you don;t have this experience.

What you have provided is some stock audio measurements & again I asked you to prove your claims - that your measurements show audibility in this area. I asked you to produce measurements of the analogue output of a DAC which correlate to audibility in a USB DAC with/without the Intona in-line (presuming there is an audible difference).
Again something you are reluctant to do or even address.

Amir, without demonstrating that you have the necessary knowledge in this area & can demonstrate the necessary correlation between measurements & audibility - all your objections amount to is a lot of hand-waving

In fact your ridiculous counter argument about keeping a computer busy being the way to better sound from a PC hits on exactly the same theory as Swenson - it's the reactivity of PDN & the ground noise injected on the motherboard that is the underlying reason except Swenson takes the obvious logical next step & treats the reactive PDN instead of trying to band-aid the issue as you suggested ala Keith Johnson.

So in fact you argued exactly the same as Swenson but didn't recognise that's what you were doing & thought you were arguing against his theory.

I asked you a simple question john, directly to the topic of this thread. The device advertises it has achieved USB audio perfection. Do you believe that or not and on what basis?

Here is the full quote from their web site again:

"What makes the microRendu different from a typical computer music server is that it's a purpose built audiophile device. The problem with computer music servers is that they all rely on mass produced motherboards designed for general purpose computing and are built to the lowest possible price point. The microRendu solves this problem by removing the consumer grade computer peripherals and optimizing power supplies where necessary. The microRendu has been specifically built for processing USB audio perfectly. You can also combine the microRendu with an audiophile grade linear power supply to achieve the lowest possible noise floor. "

On the lowest possible noise floor, do you think we can measure that? Do you think they have measured it and compared it to other servers?

Do you think anything they say should be subject to objective evaluation above?

As you see, I am just asking questions. If you think questions should not be asked, then I liked to know when that culture has become the norm among consumers.

In other words, do you have anything to say that relates to the topic at hand?

 

[amirm]

Yes, deeper soundstage (not wider) is often the result of reduced noise/better signal quality in the USB connection.

Why? Isn't the important deal whether the reduced noise/signal quality is what comes out of the DAC rather than what goes into it?

I don't know exactly what this psychoacoustic effect is due to - is it simply a reduction in the previously unnoticed background noise so that the sounds come from a quieter background & tail off more naturally, thereby giving more natural, solidity to the sound and/or is it that this reduction in noise is reducing the jitter in the signal leading to a better rendering of sounds?

Psychoacoustic effect only kicks in when you hear sound. You don't hear USB digital output. So we don't get to this part of the equation until we explain how changing something on USB (assume that is what is happening in a positive manner) reflects in the output of the DAC.

 

[amirm]

IMHO this is the critical point in our divergence. As soon as someone is persuaded that the improvements are not audible he is free to use any metrics to look for engineering excellence, forgetting the most important aspect for users- sound quality. IMHO correlation is the base of audio studies, engineering excellence is a very interesting but too personnel issue if it is not related to sound quality or perceptible aspects such as value for money or reliability.

Sorry, no. We don't get to "quality" until we have determined something is audible first. What I said is that I actually accept that lower bar, which is even if we can demonstrate that the improvement is inaudible, I still like to see engineering excellence in products.

A straight question - do you consider that all the DACs you have measured that have only shown measured differences bellow the audibility threshold sound the same in all systems?

Not all. This one for example for sure failed that: http://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...puter-activity-can-impact-dac-performance.22/

My son bought this DAC. Complained that while playing his games he could hear system activity through it. I measured it and found clearly susceptibility to hard disk/system activity. In other words, there was no mystery. Noise can be measured and was. He returned the product and bought a different one.

 

[jkeny]

I asked you a simple question john, directly to the topic of this thread. The device advertises it has achieved USB audio perfection. Do you believe that or not and on what basis?

Here is the full quote from their web site again:

"What makes the microRendu different from a typical computer music server is that it's a purpose built audiophile device. The problem with computer music servers is that they all rely on mass produced motherboards designed for general purpose computing and are built to the lowest possible price point. The microRendu solves this problem by removing the consumer grade computer peripherals and optimizing power supplies where necessary. The microRendu has been specifically built for processing USB audio perfectly. You can also combine the microRendu with an audiophile grade linear power supply to achieve the lowest possible noise floor. "

On the lowest possible noise floor, do you think we can measure that? Do you think they have measured it and compared it to other servers?

Do you think anything they say should be subject to objective evaluation above?

As you see, I am just asking questions. If you think questions should not be asked, then I liked to know when that culture has become the norm among consumers.

In other words, do you have anything to say that relates to the topic at hand?

You deflect from my questions yet again, Amir - at this stage it's conclusive that your avoidance of the issue of VLSI & motherboard design along with noise budgets & PDN is scant & your criticism of Swenson in this regard holds no water. So I & others can take your dismissal of his "theory as flawed" with the grains of salt that it warrants.

As to your question about noise measurement - yes, I believe it can be measured but with great difficulty - what approaches have you taken to investigate this?
As consumers are we expected to rely on your premature condemnation of products based on simplistic measurements as evidence of the effectiveness of said device?
Are you stating for the record that your measurements fully characterise the device?

 

[amirm]

You deflect from my questions yet again, Amir - at this stage it's conclusive that your avoidance of the issue of VLSI & motherboard design along with noise budgets & PDN is scant & your criticism of Swenson in this regard holds no water. So I & others can take your dismissal of his "theory as flawed" with the grains of salt that it warrants.

As to your question about noise measurement - yes, I believe it can be measured but with great difficulty - what approaches have you taken to investigate this?
As consumers are we expected to rely on your premature condemnation of products based on simplistic measurements as evidence of the effectiveness of said device?
Are you stating for the record that your measurements fully characterise the device?

You might think you are a clever debater to turn this into a personal battle but I won't go there John. I am asking questions about this specific product. I have asked simple questions about what they are saying on their web site. Despite all that you post, you refuse to answer those. You can't tell me what perfect USB audio means. You can't tell me if we can measure what they say about noise floor with their other power supply.

In other words, you have no contributions to offer to this thread whatsoever.

If you want to debate me personally on off-topic areas you keep listing, by all means, post it in the Fight Club section of ASR Forum and I will go toe to toe with you. But not here.

 

[jkeny]

Why? Isn't the important deal whether the reduced noise/signal quality is what comes out of the DAC rather than what goes into it?

Prove that you can measure this with an Intona in-line & you may have something to stand over that statement. All we have is hand-waving & demands to accept your measurements as some sort of demonstration of something.

Psychoacoustic effect only kicks in when you hear sound. You don't hear USB digital output. So we don't get to this part of the equation until we explain how changing something on USB (assume that is what is happening in a positive manner) reflects in the output of the DAC.

I'm talking about how the reduction in noise in the PDN on the digital side translates into the exact same psychoacoustics as Steve heard. You can argue all you like, Amir but these audible differences are real & demonstrable. If you don't hear them I don't know why - it's too difficult to diagnose remotely.

Prove that your measurements can show this first before I or others will entertain that you actually have anything valid to present.

 

[jkeny]

You might think you are a clever debater to turn this into a personal battle but I won't go there John. I am asking questions about this specific product. I have asked simple questions about what they are saying on their web site. Despite all that you post, you refuse to answer those. You can't tell me what perfect USB audio means. You can't tell me if we can measure what they say about noise floor with their other power supply.

In other words, you have no contributions to offer to this thread whatsoever.

If you want to debate me personally on off-topic areas you keep listing, by all means, post it in the Fight Club section of ASR Forum and I will go toe to toe with you. But not here.

I don't think I am clever at all but your continual deflections do not go unnoticed.

I have corrected you on your assertion that ensuring constant activity on the PC (an impossible & foolish suggestion) was the best way to get better sound - an assertion which you presented as if it was in contradiction to the MicroRendu's. What you failed to realise is that Swenson already realises this & gets to the heart of the matter, the reactive PDN & resulting fluctuating ground noise injection was best dealt with at the level of the PDN itself.

You haven't mentioned this theory since I exposed your logical flaw.

I have given my experience with the Regen & with motherboard PDNs - all of which contribute to the topic. Your attempts to dismiss & diminish my contribution is not however, unusual.

 

[amirm]

Prove that you can measure this with an Intona in-line & you may have something to stand over that statement. All we have is hand-waving & demands to accept your measurements as some sort of demonstration of something.

I'm talking about how the reduction in noise in the PDN on the digital side translates into the exact same psychoacoustics as Steve heard. You can argue all you like, Amir but these audible differences are real & demonstrable. If you don't hear them I don't know why - it's too difficult to diagnose remotely.

Prove that your measurements can show this first before I or others will entertain that you actually have anything valid to present.

I haven't presented anything John. I am asking you if you know how to validate what they say about USB audio perfection on their web site. It is there in black and white. Do we take their word for it? Is that what you are saying?

What if something better comes along later? Would that then be more perfect?

How about the lower noise floor with their extra power supply. Is that effect not measureable either John?

 

[amirm]

Do we think they measured their gear while they were designing it? For example, whey they added the more expensive power supply, did they just assume the noise floor went down? Or did they make a measurement?

 

[Steve Williams]

Do we think they measured their gear while they were designing it? For example, whey they added the more expensive power supply, did they just assume the noise floor went down? Or did they make a measurement?

Jesus, the product designer, is a member here. Perhaps you can ask him rather than asking John to speculate.

 

[YashN]

cThey do not hide the fact that it's based on Linux at it's core. They make no claim that this makes a difference. They use it because it headless, simple, robust and has the features they need to meet the product goals.

Far more customisable than the commercial OSes too, meaning you can strip it down more easily if necessary, or even re-write parts of it if you fancy as the source code is always available.

 

[amirm]

I don't think I am clever at all but your continual deflections do not go unnoticed.

I have corrected you on your assertion that ensuring constant activity on the PC (an impossible & foolish suggestion) was the best way to get better sound - an assertion which you presented as if it was in contradiction to the MicroRendu's. What you failed to realise is that Swenson already realises this & gets to the heart of the matter, the reactive PDN & resulting fluctuating ground noise injection was best dealt with at the level of the PDN itself.

You haven't mentioned this theory since I exposed your logical flaw.

I have given my experience with the Regen & with motherboard PDNs - all of which contribute to the topic. Your attempts to dismiss & diminish my contribution is not however, unusual.

I dismiss your off-topic challenges because you clearly want a fist-fight and I won't go there with you in this forum John. I offered you another path on ASR Forum. You are there already. And fighting some of those arguments there. But somehow want to have that battle with me here in addition?

And let me ask you this question again: do you have any commercial interest in products such as Regen? Our forum rules require such disclosure.

 

[YashN]

I dismiss your off-topic challenges because you clearly want a fist-fight and I won't go there with you in this forum John. I offered you another path on ASR Forum.

I checked it out: AJ of HA fame, the continuously banned Blizzard, who managed to burn yet another bridge with a manufacturer he supposedly wanted to distribute and who has a verifiable habit of touting things he was just taught as his own ideas (including things I repetitively told him to try over at CA), some of the additional trolling no-gooders/know-it-alls we've seen posting but not bringing anything really clever to the table.

Looks like you've built yourself another HA. Good luck with that.

The day you want to really learn and start measuring properly, you know who to ask.

Hey, if your new forum is so good, spend more time there, why not even just stay there completely, maybe the threads here will get cleaner, and people who value innovation and are curious to hear what these could bring in their setup by sharing listening impressions, good or bad or neutral, can happily share and learn from each other.

You've already said this device isn't for you, so this thread isn't either...