airguitar

Thinking again about how much software makes for the biggest jump in sound quality, HQPlayer to SOtM NAA endpoint - has anyone compared that with LMS to SOtM Sqeezelite endpoint? Looks like it's not so much the hardware (Auralic Aries vs SOtM sMS-200 Ultra) but the software that makes the biggest difference in sound quality which is something I did not think about when starting this thread ! They would be feeding an Audio Note 0.1x DAC - which is very fussy about transport because the AN does not do re-clocking.

Anyway ... does someone want to run me through a quick recommended HQ Player NAA config using the sms-200 Ultra? I know you are saying the HQ player has improved the sound quality of your system - but what do I need to consider? I do happen to have a good quality Intel NUC 8 with 16Gb worth of HyperX DDR4 memory running Windows 10 (but can upgrade to 11) <-- that would probably be where I install HQ Player but PLEASE don't tell me I need to go looking for an optimized audiophile computer as a server I can't be bothered will all that and hope it's unnecessary. What I need to know about HQ Player is does it included Qobuz and streaming from Qobuz without the need for Roon, to an NAA endpoint? Also does HQ Player support streaming from Internet Radio stations again without Roon to an NAA endpoint? So hopefully: Intel NUC / HQ Player (not Roon) >>> streaming Qobuz / Internet Radio Stations from HQ Player >>> NAA endpoint (sms 200 Ultra). Advice needed please to get this right.

So the Auralic has a big compromise in sound quality ... interesting. I've heard the Grimm - excellent but a bit rich for me. However, if you add the other kit all up you may already have, i.e. three SOtM boxes and associated peripherals the price creeps up before you know it.

This is a very much appreciated account of your experience that I need in order for me to determine whether to move across to the Auralic G1 or not - thank you. I'm still not that keen in changing the sPS-500 across to something different - it will just make the pairing look more ugly. But if you really do think that the sPS-500 is just not as good, and others raise the performance that much - I may have to consider it (begrudgingly). Trying to understand here - the hardware is just about level pegging in terms of sound quality (and therefore I would prefer the 'looks' and 'neatness' of the Auralic) - but with Roon (I don't use Roon btw) and the HQ Player pairing this took sound quality up an appreciable degree (in your words 'no contest') - and that's "without" messing around with up-sampling - and just using HQ Player in its untouched native default state? So the streaming software itself is HUGELY influential upon sound quality (I wonder why that is?). And there is no way to use HQ Player on the Auralic? I guess I am still gunning for the Auralic for looks alone - but if you managed to get far better sound quality by way of this software pairing with HQ Player I will need to investigate that (however i don't have Roon). Sorry not having Roon must make you wonder what software I do use - I use LMS and Squeezelite both running on the sMS-200 Ultra (i.e. I don't have LMS itself running separately on a computer on the same subnet). I find this all very interesting - but need some points clarifying.

How do you use a clock on and Auralic Aries 1.0 (not a 1.1)? I can't see a connection for it unless I am missing something?

Not much consensus on this one - I think I will try the G1 for myself and see. Then sell one what doesn't sound so good (no doubt they will both sound excellent I would be just moving on the one which doesn't quite match the other - however if there isn't much between the Auralic Aries G1 transport and the sMS-200 Ultra - I may stick with the G1 because it has many more connectivity options and is therefore more flexible.

I'm sure the Innuous Pulse is great but as in my first post - has anyone got experience with the Auralic Aries G1 streaming transport when comparing it the Sotm 200 Ultra package? I can get the G1 for a good used price so it's tempting because it is more 'functional', but even so, I value anyone's experience if there is any on this forum. Yes I can improve on what I have with an audiophool network switch as mentioned earlier - but that would also improve the G1. Thanks.

OK that's a shame about the SPS-500 because it looks in keep with the SMS-200 Ultra! I don't want this to get messy - if you were disappointed with the SPS-500 I consider this part of the SMS system overall - and overall you found that this particular "system" with matching components lacked the clarity out of USB. The more I think about it perhaps I would be better off trying out the one box Auralic Aries G1 streaming transport as one neat package and hopefully one great sounding package at least equal to the SMS package (or better maybe?).

I stand corrected

I've just looked at the video thanks. I work in the IT industry and can easily get hold of a couple of Cisco switches and then cable them together with fibre via SFP converters to isolate the audio network as in the video (I think some Cisco switches come with OCXO clocks as standard but I will need to research that to confirm it). You can also isolate the audio network by running Wi-Fi between the ISP router and the streamer if the streamer supports Wi-Fi (which of course the SOtM does not - however the Auralic does include Wi-Fi - Auralic even endorse Wi-Fi). Going back to the equipment question - all things being equal (i.e. riding on a good quality network infrastructure) can anyone compare the G1 with the SOtM sMS 200 Ultra?

No experience of the two from anyone then ?

I currently own an SOtM 200 Ultra with associated sPS-500 psu and am considering getting a good used Auralic Aries G1 Streaming Transport. Now with the SOtM gear mentioned about you can keep adding boxes and further improve on the sound. The Auralic G1 Streaming Transport is more versatile and is a neat one box design with a good reputation. Whereas the features are better on the Auralic - can anyone comment which would sound the best please as a streaming transport? I either invest in the Auralic G1 or keep the current SOtM combo knowing that in time you can add more boxes for even better sound quality (if that really is the case). For sound quality alone - which one is best please if you can help? Will the Auralic better or equal my current SOtM configuration?

.... and to take this a little further - if you downloaded the album from the streaming service and then burnt that album onto CDR, and played it through a high-end CD Transport - that would sound better than your locally stored NAS version. Counter intuitive I know ... but such is the case.

Oh look ... an old posting not answered. I get the impression that if you went down the Nimitra route the sound you get will be "better" and not worse.

You can sort this out on your own - there's no need to buy into an "audiophile" router. Unless I can be convinced otherwise (I still have an open mind). Perhaps use a different channel - or use 5Ghz which tends to be less crowded. So many things can interfere with Wi-Fi even a faulty electrical connection which can create RFI. Wi-Fi management can be a pain - for this reason alone (not necessarily sound quality) use Ethernet.