DMelby

A few things to try that might help your system. I've experimented with an ASUS prime x-299 deluxe II, and found the following were the most beneficial (try at your own risk, and your system will be slow as a turtle but sound better). In general principle the higher the clock speeds, switching frequencies, etc the worse the sound. Perhaps related to EMI generated at higher speeds? Not sure... BCLK frequency 100 Asus multicore enhancement disabled SPU Core ratio sync all cores All-Core Ratio Limit 7 (or 8 if you cant choose 7) Min CPU Cache Ratio 8 Max CPU Cache Ratio 8 BCLK Frequent:DRAM Frequency Ratio 100:100 DRAM Frequency DDR4-1000MHZ (or if you can, 800MHZ) CPU Load line Calibration Level 1 Fixed CPU VRM Switching Frequency 300 DRAM Switching Frequency Manual Fixed DRAM Switching Frequency 300 Hyper-Threading Disabled Active Processor Cores (all but 1 or 2 disabled) When complete, confirm that bios says your CPU frequency is 700 (or 800) and memory frequency is 1000 (or 800)

I also have a W20 with HRS (rack, M3X2 isolation base, and DPX damping plates). I have experimented with each configuration. In my experience the isolation base is the most important followed by the damping plate.

I too had a similar listening experience comparing MQA to files ripped to my local Aurender. I was quite excited to experience an improvement with MQA but my local files sounded thoroughly better in every way. MQA files from Tidal were loud, harsh, and had a loss in resolution as well as harmonics. Tidal with MQA is great for casual listening but buying the actual CD is significantly better in my experience. YMMV. I haven't been able to get on the qobuz usa beta yet to check that out but based on your experience looks like CDs will remain my go to choice.

I have been following this debate for some time with interest. I have to say I am not an engineer, and cannot follow the arguments for and against MQA to the detail as many that have posted. I am simply a music lover since my twenties, and lover of the best sound reproduction that I can experience. Experiencing the emotional power of music reproduced well gives me great joy, and is why I am in this hobby and dedicate significant time and resources. It does make me sad somewhat to see the bitterness of this debate. I would hope we all just want the same thing. There are certainly high stakes on all sides of this debate. I will not weigh in, as my opinion in the technical and business matters is well inferior to many others in this community. I would though like to simply add one listeners experience with MQA as streamed by Tidal compared to my best method ripped CDs (off topic - but yes there are methods to get significantly better sound from a ripped CD then just ripping with DBpoweramp). Over the last 3 months I have listened to dozens of songs directly comparing my ripped version to the Tidal MQA (fully unfolded) version. I am using equipment capable of very fine reproduction (Berkeley Reference DAC MQA, Aurender W20 with MQA, Woo Audio WA33, Focal utopia headphones...) Mind you these are just my listening experiences and your experiences may vary based on equipment and preferences. MQA may be the best thing for other reasons, but this is just the contribution of one listener to the community experience with sound quality. I was really excited about MQA based on the good reviews from folks in the past whose reviews I have used to explore new audio equipment. In total I would sum up the differences across the board as: the MQA tracks were louder. The MQA tracks did not reveal any new information not present on the CD. Subtle information deep within the recording (such as the sound of a keys being pushed on a trumpet or musicians taking a breath) were more easily heard with the CD rips. Harmonics were richer on the CD rips. The MQA versions lost delicacy across the audio spectrum of everything heard, almost like it was compressed or distorted. The CD rips sound like the musician is live with me in the room. The MQA versions had a somewhat harsh tone in the upper range which in my experience often represents digital noise of some sort. So, to my disappointment, I found I preferred well done CD rips by a large margin to Tidal streamed MQA tracks. I honestly was hoping that MQA would sound spectacular, as CD ripping can be time consuming. I will say though that TIdal streamed MQA does sound better than regular streamed tracks - so it may have some use in the streaming sector. But it does not seem to me to be the best in sound quality available (even with CDs at a lower resolution compared to the unfolded MQA tracks).

Yes, I heard the Aurender N10 update for MQA is in the beta phase, and perhaps will be available soon. In the meantime, PCM is amazing with the Berkeley update.

I have just installed the MQA upgrade today, easy process overall with no problems. All I can say is wow, on CD rips/PCM the improvement is substantial and wonderful. Agree with stevebythebay, the upgrade is well worth it. Strangely, streaming tidal MQA from my N10 isn't working though as my dac is not displaying MQA or unfolding to higher than 48.

Thank you Jim! Hope you enjoy your N10, and please add your experiences to the discussion

Thank you Marcin. I read that review too, and that led me down the path of CAPS and tweaking. It was very fun to do all that - I really enjoyed the journey. But my experience was different in the comparison, so I thought I would add to the discussion.

Hi Rafi, Thank you for your question. I compared the N10 to CAPS 3 just simply because that is what I had to compare to is all. I had built and tweaked my CAPS over about an 18 month period using countless tweaks - each one did indeed made a nice improvement - so I felt like I had utilized even more advanced optimization techniques than the V4 CAPS which it was my impression was intended to update hardware rather than provide a fully tweaked system. I thought it was a better test system in the end than a basic V4. Also I was thinking of building a V4, but wanted to test the waters with an N10 first to see what the comparison was like. Good heavens, it was so far ahead of my CAPS, I never looked back. Cost is a legitimate concern for sure. And of course, the effect and benefit is always dependent on the supporting components and cables. I did power my CAPS and USB card with a Red wine battery power supply. You raise an important question - could the best of the best compete with the N10? At least what I had did not even close, but honestly - Not sure? I was hoping that other members would add their experiences then we would all know together As for the V3 CAPS with what I had installed - no contest, the N10 won and I have been so happy with my audio systems performance over the past few months. So beautiful! As for price - I was very happy with my CAPS 3 and it worked just great in my past systems. As I moved up the audio ladder and other aspects of my system became crystal clear - the weaknesses of my CAPS became more and more apparent. So my tweaked CAPS didn't allow my to hear all the beauty present in my favorite recordings. But I would think a CAPS is an outstanding price value and can be a destination component in the right system. Hope this all makes sense.

Excellent question! I had put >3k into my CAPS build with SSD, SOTM USB card, Paul Pang SATA, WS 2012 with AO, vibration control etc... and have always wondered if any of the less expensive Aurenders would have competed well as they were in the same price point. I know Chris had compared the S10 to his CAPS several years ago and preferred his CAPS. His review on the N100 didn't give any comparisons. The performance of a well done CAPS build with WS 2012 and AO is excellent, so high bar to compete with. I went with the N10 and compared it to my much loved CAPS. The N10 handily beat it. But hopefully someone has done a comparison with the items you described and can contribute.

Congratulations, that's excellent you are enjoying it too! I love mine, it sounds so good I can't stop listening - totally addicting. Give it a couple weeks though to reach its full potential. You may notice its a bit up and down during that time, but always better than the comparison. Bass and resolution in particular seemed to be the most up and down. Now after 2-3 weeks mine is pretty stable and sounds wonderful. Looking forward to your follow up impression - post when you can...

Just a brief update, after continuing to allow the N10 to play continuously for the past week or so, there has been continued improvements in detail, soundstage, and overall delicacy (for lack of a better word). There was a period of about 3-5 days where the bass just left, but when it came back, it came back even better than at the beginning. I really wish this hadn't left my CAPS v3 Carbon in the dust - I had spent more than a year tweaking that server on and off :-/, but I'm glad I tried the switch! On a side note for anyone interested, I have observed all digital (cables, servers, all things computer related) breaks in faster playing high res files...

Hi Warren, Wish I could comment directly on the Aries, but I haven't had the priviledge of hearing one yet. Some other posts I have read discussed the differences Aries to the Aurender N100 and they sonically preferred the Aurender. Each experience though of course can be different. But it was based on those that I looked at Aurender over the Aries. I just want to maximize the sound quality as much as I can. User interface is a nice extra, but not my top priority. I think the 2TB drives might be replaced, but probably not necessary as the data is transferred from the hard drive to SSD as a cache to optimize playback fidelity. The hard drives are basically turned off as I understand it. So doubt there would be an advantage from an audio quality perspective. And the cost would be very high for 4TB of SSD. Wish they were less expensive! And as long as you have something like an external USB backup drive then if the hard drives ever fail, easy and less expensive to replace.

Hi Kenreau, Definitely worth checking out the N10. I'd love to hear your thoughts comparing it to your S10 so please post your experience when you have a chance. Give it a good 7-14 days of break in though before rendering your verdict. I could hear the greatness from the beginning, but it is still getting better day by day and I'm at day 10 of continuous play/break in.

Hi Warren, Great question - unfortunately I am unable to compare USB to Alpha USB to DAC because the Berkeley Reference does not have a USB input. Comparing the USB out on the N10 to the AES out, the USB sounded excellent but I preferred the AES - very musical. This comment though comes with one caveat - I've put more time on the AES out, so it was probably more fully broken in compared to the USB output. That might explain some of the difference I heard in favor of the AES output. Part of me thinks though as a general rule the less steps in the audio chain the better.