I objectively know that the CX isn’t going to support features that are Nucleus/Nucleus+ exclusive, regardless of CX’s hardware capabilities. For example, we released Crestron/C4 support for Roon as a Nucleus/Nucleus+ exclusive feature, the CX cannot run that. There will be more in the future, many of them desirable by a larger audience. I also am aware of the future of the Roon Core program in ways that are not public. I know one for fact that many of our users will want, but there is no way a clock-reduced i5 will do it. I’m not even sure a non-clock reduced i5 will. We will be testing that shortly to find out.
For the subjective pieces, or the pieces I may not know the whole story, I did the following:
- I put up a disclaimer about my bias
- I stated that SQ is very subjective
- I used the word “might” (misspelled as “migght”) about the clock speed capabilities (even though I know there is stuff we are going to do that I know can’t be done by the CX even at full speed)
- I said that I didn’t “buy it” about Antipodes clock speed theories (with a reason of why I didn’t). That’s not a statement stating a fact, only my opinion.
I’m not sure what else I could do here to be more clear on my position here, with all caveats. There are no secret techniques or understanding, to make computers perform better. This still is well understood and the knowledge is public. The SQ side is a different story (possibly), but there is no such problem about performance.
I feel like you may have a stake in the game here, since you’ve only come to defend this one unit. What is your bias?