I guess I didn’t make clear that I have no interest in discussing this further. I have only shared my experience with the microRendu, a bit of history how I got it and expressing my disinterest in one dimensional measurements that don’t tell me anything about a devices sound quality or character.
Like RBM I’ll remove myself from the discussion here. The time can be spent better, I don’t need to convince anyone on anything discussed here.
PS. I am an EE too, I meant just on paper, I’m not in the profession.
Since you acknowledge the WBF link and the ability to hear differences. Can you please qualify your testing methodology so that we can actually be sure that these tests can actually be useful to judge sound quality.
You have directly related them to sound quality, without any real control verification. Until such time all of you conclusions are just unconfirmed speculations.
Your own words. " Without controls, vast majority of ad-hoc tests such as what you mention generate faulty results. "
If it is from a guy who reports to Bill Gates and won an Emmy Award for Streaming Media Architectures and Components, they should respond. Amir is humble enough not to brag about this.
I laud Amir for standing up to corporate manipulation and false advertising particularly from companies who’s designers don’t have the credentials but just build their names up in the internet and without the AP or equivalent measurement tools use at all in their designs.
The interesting part of this discussion is the measurement and the methodology behind it.
Appeals to an experimenter’s history and experience, whether positive or negative, just get in the way and invite off-topic argument. If his measurement is right it doesn’t matter if it’s the first thing he’s ever published. If his methodology is flawed it doesn’t matter how many awards he’s received.
Similarly, claims of false advertising etc. are premature. A measurement has been made, the methodology has been questioned. The debate is continuing and may take months to resolve. I view it as an interesting first result awaiting replication by other experimenters.
Andrew: I appreciate that there are a lot of us Roon customers who are using either the Sonore SonicOrbiter or MicroRendu in our systems and I believe most of us are doing so either because we believe they add sonic benefits or because they “do no sonic harm” while providing NAA or similar networking benefits to our sound systems. That has resulted in a lot of Sonore related threads here.
So I understand your desire to provide a lot of latitude to those who might question devices that clearly have benefitted from high exposure on the Roon forums.
But, I’m troubled by the lack of transparency and by a seemingly strong desire to put down the microRendu when it appears that the only real questions relate to the iFi iPower device. As to that device, there are two related, but separate questions (i) does it filter noise appropriately from getting into the device it powers, and (ii) does it put a lot of noise back into the mains power supply that can then be picked up by other equipment. ifi tends to claim that it does both. If it does (i) but not (ii) then a test that includes measurement of the microrendu AND a second component plugged into the same mains as the iFi may reflect a higher noise level than that being contributed by the microrendu alone. As I understand it, this is one of the areas in which the “noise” measurements are being questioned. Until we get a further response/measurements from iFi or further clarification from Amir, we just won’t know.
But, why does Amir insist on then continuing to pick on Sonore? Yes, I understand that Sonore sells a version of the microrendu with the iPower and due notice has now been served to those potential buyers that they might want to wait for further claridfication. For example, in the post above, Amir highlights the following Sonore claim: “You can also combine the microRendu with an audiophile grade linear power supply to achieve the lowest possible noise floor.”
He then says: “I have not found any evidence of the device lowering noise floor. This is an objective claim that is trivially verified.” I see absolutely nothing in the Sonore claim about the microrendu “lowering the noise floor.” they simply acknowledge that using a higher quality linear power supply than the iPower will allow you to achieve the lowest possible noise floor.
My best guess is that the microrendu itself neither increases nor decreases the noise level; its benefits are to be found elsewhere, i.e. perhaps jitter or reclocking (areas that Amir hasn’t tested at all). When I then go back and read similar comments from Amir regarding another product designed by John Swenson (the equally popular Regen), it makes me wonder whether there is in fact a hidden agenda here (particularly when the real subject of concern should be the iPower, to which Amir seems to give much more deference (perhaps because iFi is backed by the more formis=dable AMR)).
To me the current botton line is that there are a lot of Roon users who love their Sonore products. A question has been raised as to whether those products sound best when powered by really high quality linear power supplies. Beyond that, more evidence is needed before anyone changes their buying decisions about Sonore products based on Amir’s test results.
"Some people are rather stuck in the camp of “If it can’t be measured, it can’t be heard.” I think more open and scientific minds would think “If it can be heard, then perhaps we are measuring the wrong things.” Yet anytime that is brought up–as I did when we met Amir (who is actually a VERY nice fellow!)–the argument turns to “Well you have not proven that people are hearing anything” (ABX testes, etc.). "
I don’t think anyone reading Alex’s reference to me above as a sign of us having a personal conflict. I absolutely have none.
The reason for testing of microRendu came from fantastical conclusions people drew prior to owning them that it would have such and such technical benefits. As with the counterarguments now, they were all theories that people thought were real. Not wanting to be guilty of the same and relying on theories, I spent $700 of my own money to verify what I think the product should do. And that is what it is doing, i.e. no measurable benefit. It is first set of objective data that you can touch and feel devoid of what someone says they can or cannot hear which cannot be analyzed.
Ultimately I don’t make any claims to sainthood. And I sure hope we don’t assign the same to manufacturers. We are exchanging information that hopefully elevates our knowledge of these new technologies. Driving blind in a forest is not a path we would want to follow.
I agree. It definitely sounds different to me than a direct USB connection from my (very quiet) server. I like the sound of the mR better; someone else might disagree.
I’m thinking that this thread is far less controversial than it first appears. Sonore claim that “You can also combine the microRendu with an audiophile grade linear power supply to achieve the lowest possible noise floor.”
Amir’s tests appear to indicate that you can achieve the lowest possible noise floor if you use a decent power supply, rather than the low budget iFi switch mode offering. Indeed, Sonore appear to suggest a wide range of PSU’s, as well as developing the upcoming ‘Ultracap’ item. In fact this entire thing appears to revolve around exactly how you read Sonore’s claims. To be honest, their use of English, the exact phrases used, are such that you can intemperate ‘lowest possible noise floor’ as a claim for the device, or a statement advising the benefits of using a high quality PSU. In fact, there is quite a lot posted by representatives of Sonore on Computer Audiophile making it clear that they strongly recommend clean power for the microRendu.
To be honest, I have no idea if Amir’s claims are valid or not. Although one thing I’d like to know is that assuming Amir’s claims are correct, what would be the expected impact on sound quality. How audible would this be? Is it a significant problem or not?
[quote=“Brian69, post:123, topic:11761”]
Sonore appear to suggest a wide range of PSU’s, as well as developing the upcoming ‘Ultracap’ item.[/quote]
the upcoming “ultracap item” is by UpTone Audio, not Sonore
only common factor being John Swenson deisgning the whole ultracap item and microRendu’s USB stage
I recently moved from a Mac mini to an Aries setup. only got the Aries to beat the Mac after powering it from the very same JS-2 LPS
Thanks for the clarifications Paolo, I guess the lines between Sonore and UpTone Audio are a little burry in my mind, with many UpTone products listed on the microRendu website. However, you are quite correct, and clarity is good with these things!
and most importantly does the mr result in any cleaner a signal being output by the receiving DAC than the same DAC would accomplish using other single board computers? For the price it should be huge given it’s ~15x the cost of a typical single board computer before adding a power supply.
It would also depend on the DAC being used. Newer DACs that use the ultra-low noise voltage regulators internally along with XMOS USB isolators will not likely show any difference. Older DACs might be more sensitive to USB noise, both power and signal.
their marketing copy makes no such distinction… “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.” By implication then, all DACs will benefit, not just poorly designed ones.
I’m inclined to think that microrendu will not improve most modern systems. An XMOS receiver should deal with any isolation issues. If the goal is merely to optimize USB signals, then it isn’t groundbreaking in any interpretable degree. The DAC still controls timing in an asynchronous/isochronous system. I call bullshit.
I am terminally annoyed by the people here and at CA that conflate network packet delivery with DAC timing and reproduction. Perfect USB transport is a far cry from conversion.
Good DACs and transports typically make timing issues and common- and differential-mode electromagnetic noise irrelevant. Feel free to assume that designers of decent DACs are knowledgeable and competent in their field.
And I sure hope we don’t assign the same to manufacturers. We are exchanging information that hopefully elevates our knowledge of these new technologies. Driving blind in a forest is not a path we would want to follow.