Auralic Aries Mini vs. Sonore microRendu vs. SOtM SMS-200 Listening Impressions

[austinpop]

Prolog - Introduction

Here's the great thing about CA. You become active, try be civil and respectful in your interactions, write reviews and provide feedback that helps others. THEN, people start lending you stuff!

 

So here's the back story: as many of you know, I have an Aries Mini based system, to which I have applied a lot of optimizations - network, USB, power, and vibration. The Mini has scaled up very well with each of these, to the point where my system is sounding very good indeed!

 

So at one point, I wondered out loud if after all my optimizations, would I still find an SQ improvement by moving to the CA darlings - the Sonore microRendu or the SMS-200? Well, wouldn't you know it, a kind CA'er who will remain anonymous PM'ed me, and offered me the loan of his mR AND SMS-200, along with an LPS-1, if I would post my assessment here.

 

That's what this thread is about. My only motivation is to assess - for myself - given the current state of my system, whether there is an SQ benefit to be had with the mR and/or the SMS-200.

 

Current setup and Music preferences

 

Since I have existing diagrams of my topology, both the audio chain, and the network, I'm attaching them here.

 

Audio Topology

 

Network Topology

 

One thing I haven't talked about much is the analog portion of my chain. I do all my critical music listening on headphones. Two of the best investments I ever made in audio were the Cavalli Liquid Gold Headphone Amp and the Sennheiser HD800, modded with the so-called Super Dupont mod. More recently, I've added the Focal Elear headphones to my stable.

 

About 80% of my music listening is to classical music on DSD64. The rest is a mix of progressive and classic rock, acoustic jazz, and assorted, also either on DSD or high-res PCM. I listen to almost no 16/44.1 music unless I have to.

 

The HD800 and the Elear are complementary. The HD800 is unparalleled for classical, but can sound thin and harsh with brighter, less pristine recordings. This is where the Elear steps up. Its warmer, thicker, albeit less-resolving signature tames the bright recordings just enough to be very enjoyable. The pair make a really good combo!

 

Finally, I've spent quite some time fine tuning my cable choices, and those are also dialed in nicely. I'm using short Curious USB cables where necessary, and my analog cables are Ayre Signature XLR interconnects from the Codex DAC to the Cavalli Amp, and Moon Audio Black Dragon balanced from the amp to the HD800.

 

Key questions I want to answer for my system

They are:

• What is the optimized mR chain in my system? Stated differently - do the same isolations I used for the Mini also help the mR? Ultimately, this step is to determine the optimal mR configuration, with what I have on hand.
  
• How much additional SQ improvement does the optimized mR chain provide over and above my optimized Aries Mini chain?
  
• If the optimal mR chain is better SQ, is is also simpler? For example, does it still need the Intona and/or the RUR, and FMCs? The point here is to see what the net cost of buying an mR chain to replace the Aries Mini chain. Who knows, it may even be negative!
  
• Finally, the mR and SMS-200 enable additional server types, specifically HQPlayer and Roon. Are there SQ improvements to be had, as claimed, just by switching from MinimServer to HQPlayer or Roon?
  

I'll start posting my impressions over several parts in the coming week or two until I have to send them back. I've already had the mR/LPS-1 in place for a few days, but should receive the SMS-200 this week.

[austinpop]

So with the introductions out of the way, this is the first set of results.

 

I've had the mR for a few days in my system warming up and stabilizing. For this comparison, I wanted to hold everything else constant, and focus on the hardware:

1. compare the vanilla setups (no USB or network isolation)
   
2. optimize the mR in my setup
   
3. compare the optimal mR setup with the optimal Aries Mini setup
   

Things I held constant:

• The music server was MinimServer on my NAS. In a future installment, I hope to try HQPlayer, and possibly Roon.
  
• Network upstream of the endpoint.
  
  • BTW - I have experimented with @romaz 's direct attach via bridging method - http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f10-music-servers/novel-way-massively-improve-sq-sms-200-and-microrendu-31110/ - and ran into issues with my W10 bridge. For this comparo, I've reverted back to the endpoint (Aries Mini or mR) connected to the router.
    

   

  [*]DAC and everything downstream.

Vanilla Setups Comparison

 

By vanilla configuration, I mean:

(A) router > Aries Mini (Auralic LPS) > DAC, vs.

(B) router > mR (LPS-1) > DAC

It's always a good exercise to go back and sanity check your optimizations from time to time. In this case, I realized how flat and uninvolving my vanilla Aries Mini setup sounded. This was no comparison, really. The mR config B was miles better SQ than the Aries Mini config A.

 

I think this is what people refer to when they suggest upgrading to the mR from the Aries Mini. But what about after optimization?

 

mR Optimization

 

My optimal chain for the Aries Mini looks like this:

Router > FMC (Teralink LPS) > FMC (LPS-1) > Aries Mini (Auralic LPS) > Intona > Vbus2 > RUR (el cheapo LPS) > DAC

 

Sadly, my Intona decided to die right about when the loaner equipment showed up. So all my experiments were without the Intona in place. BTW - big shout out to Daniel at Intona. Even though my unit is a month past the warranty expiry, he shipped me a brand new replacement, that just arrived minutes ago. These guys are a class act, and I cannot praise them enough!

 

I tried various permutations and combinations. Without boring you with the details, I found that all the optimizations still applied to the mR. Specifically, even though the mR has a Regen built-in, it benefitted from having an RUR downstream.

 

Optimal Setups Comparison

 

With the Intona temporarily out of the picture, I compared the following:

© Router > FMC (Teralink LPS) > FMC (LPS-1) > Aries Mini (Auralic LPS) > Vbus2 > RUR (el cheapo LPS) > DAC vs.

(D) Router > FMC (Teralink LPS) > FMC (LPS-1) > mR (LPS-1) > Vbus2 > RUR (el cheapo LPS) > DAC

 

This is where things got a lot more interesting. First things first: D was better than C. But not by much. The mR setup had more air, a bigger image, and better timbre and dimensionality to the instruments - something I've come to recognize as the hallmarks of the LPS-1. But tonally, there were some interesting twists. The mR seems to have a slightly brighter, more in-your-face character, while the Aries Mini, while lacking quite the resolution, had a more laid-back and smoother tonality to its presentation.

 

This is also where personal tonal preferences and overall system balance comes into play. My ears prefer a warmer signature, and much of my tunings, especially with cables, has been to achieve more warmth, especially to tame the ultra-resolving and occasionally bright HD-800. With this in mind, I found that while the mR was "better," I did miss the smoother tone of the Aries Mini.

 

The final comparison, which is not one I could make any more, would be with config E:

(E) Router > FMC (Teralink LPS) > FMC (LPS-1) > Aries Mini (2 LPS-1 series) > Vbus2 > RUR (el cheapo LPS) > DAC

 

I reported on this config here: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/overall-isolation-network-universal-serial-bus-industry-standard-cables-connectors-and-communications-protocols-between-computers-and-electronic-devices-and-power-29916/index33.html#post618874

 

This is about the pinnacle of SQ I have heard with my Aries Mini! The 2xLPS-1 powering the Aries Mini gave a significant SQ boost over my current optimal configuration C.

 

So how would configs D and E compare? I hate to make pronouncements when I don't have them both in place simultaneously. But just going by memory, I would guess it would be very close indeed. It may come down to tonal preferences and cost. After all, an Aries Mini + 2xLPS-1 is roughly $1300, while the mR+LPS-1 is $1035.

 

One LPS-1 or Two?

 

What about powering the downstream FMC and the mR with the same LPS-1? I know people have reported this works with their FMCs, but it may vary based on exact model numbers.

 

In my case, using the MC200CM FMC, connecting it to the same LPS-1 as the mR caused the dreaded red light on the LPS-1. So this is not an option, at least with this particular FMC model.

 

Conclusions

 

In my current setup, the mR delivered better SQ than the Aries Mini, but the gap was much smaller with isolation optimizations in place. Also, there is a different tonal character to the two devices, which can also be a factor.

 

Overall, I have to agree that, for the price, the microRendu is an outstanding product.

 

Now stay tuned for future installments once the SMS-200 gets here, and once I've had a chance to play with HQPlayer and Roon.

[Jay Tee]

So with the introductions out of the way, this is the first set of results.

Now stay tuned for future installments once the SMS-200 gets here, and once I've had a chance to play with HQPlayer and Roon.

 

Very good work austinpop. Looking forward to what comes next.

 

At the risk of complicating things, as an owner of an Aries (femto), it would be interesting to hear if you are isolating your Aries mini physically, e.g. what does it sit on?

 

The reason I ask is that last year I bit the bullet and dived into Barry Diament's long-recommended rollerball vibration isolation technique with my Aries. The result was like a really major hardware upgrade - music was better defined, smoother top to bottom, more open and easy on the ears, overall much more enjoyable.

 

Maybe an experiment for the future.

[austinpop]

Very good work austinpop. Looking forward to what comes next.

 

At the risk of complicating things, as an owner of an Aries (femto), it would be interesting to hear if you are isolating your Aries mini physically, e.g. what does it sit on?

 

The reason I ask is that last year I bit the bullet and dived into Barry Diament's long-recommended rollerball vibration isolation technique with my Aries. The result was like a really major hardware upgrade - music was better defined, smoother top to bottom, more open and easy on the ears, overall much more enjoyable.

 

Maybe an experiment for the future.

 

Thank you for your remarks.

 

As we know, system optimization is a multidimensional space that we intrepid CA'ers explore. In my case, on the physical isolation dimension, I am probably still near the origin!

 

My only foray so far has to be to get some Herbie products. My results are described here.

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/overall-isolation-network-universal-serial-bus-industry-standard-cables-connectors-and-communications-protocols-between-computers-and-electronic-devices-and-power-29916/index35.html#post627790

 

I'm sure there is more to explore!

[Jay Tee]

Thank you for your remarks.

 

As we know, system optimization is a multidimensional space that we intrepid CA'ers explore. In my case, on the physical isolation dimension, I am probably still near the origin!

My only foray so far has to be to get some Herbie products. My results are described here. http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f22-networking-networked-audio-and-streaming/overall-isolation-network-universal-serial-bus-industry-standard-cables-connectors-and-communications-protocols-between-computers-and-electronic-devices-and-power-29916/index35.html#post627790

 

I'm sure there is more to explore!

I took a look at your post and have to say kudos to you for recognizing the value of some form of vibration isolation. I have found that not enough of us audiophiles have paid attention to this area of the hobby. I also tried some of Herbie's feet (and a bunch of other stuff), but decided last year to go Barry's way without spending too much and it was worth it.

 

I had a small bicycle inner tube lying around from a previous experiment. I then bought three stainless steel teaspoons from a local hardware store, used a hacksaw to remove the handles, carefully attached (glued) a 1 1/2 inch block of wood to the bottom of each of the three remaining shallow stainless steel "dishes" ensuring they were level. Into each of these bases I placed a stainless steel ball bearing from a local machine shop.

 

 

I had lying around a piece of aluminum sheeting about twice the area of the Aries. To make a long story short I set out the inner tube, the sheeting and the rollers as Barry suggested and voila! The sonic improvement was simply unbelievable. Excellent bass resolution among the other attributes.

 

 

One caveat: it is vital to ensure that the power and related cables at the back of the Aries are properly "dressed" so that the Aries just seems to float unhindered and of course ensure that the whole shelf is level.

 

 

If anybody tries this I would very much like to hear your impressions.

[sgr]

Hi Austinpop,

 

I agree with your findings concerning the microRendu. It is very accurate, clean, and precise. Romantic colorations need not apply for sure! but it is a great piece of equipment. I use many of your tweaks for MicroRendu as well. (Curious USB, TP Link MC200CMS, Herbie's Tenderfeet, Baby Booties, Supersonic Stabilizers, LPS-1, and a couple that you don't, Aurios and most importantly, the PS Audio LAN Rover. ) They all have their place

and duties.

It's the LanRover that has really helped the microRendu shine. I have it connected after the microRendu and powered by the HDPLEX linear power supply. And what does the LAN Rover do for the microRendu? The microRendu hands off all the dynamics, clarity, bass articulation, pacing, and blackness and the LAN Rover adds depth, imaging, wide soundstage, and a touch of musicality. The LAN Rover has two boxes about the size of a TP link module. The first unit accepts USB in from the microRendu, converts it to Ethernet which connects to the second module, which then converts Ethernet back to USB and connects from USB into the DAC.

I'm curious to find what benefit if any the RUR or the Intona would bring to the party.

Today my LPS1 shipped which I'll use to power the LAN Rover and I have a battery setup that will arrive this week to power the TPLink MC200cms. I'm hoping for even better sound quality.

I'll report back this weekend.

[austinpop]

Hi Austinpop,

 

I agree with your findings concerning the microRendu. It is very accurate, clean, and precise. Romantic colorations need not apply for sure! but it is a great piece of equipment. I use many of your tweaks for MicroRendu as well. (Curious USB, TP Link MC200CMS, Herbie's Tenderfeet, Baby Booties, Supersonic Stabilizers, LPS-1, and a couple that you don't, Aurios and most importantly, the PS Audio LAN Rover. ) They all have their place

and duties.

It's the LanRover that has really helped the microRendu shine. I have it connected after the microRendu and powered by the HDPLEX linear power supply. And what does the LAN Rover do for the microRendu? The microRendu hands off all the dynamics, clarity, bass articulation, pacing, and blackness and the LAN Rover adds depth, imaging, wide soundstage, and a touch of musicality. The LAN Rover has two boxes about the size of a TP link module. The first unit accepts USB in from the microRendu, converts it to Ethernet which connects to the second module, which then converts Ethernet back to USB and connects from USB into the DAC.

I'm curious to find what benefit if any the RUR or the Intona would bring to the party.

Today my LPS1 shipped which I'll use to power the LAN Rover and I have a battery setup that will arrive this week to power the TPLink MC200cms. I'm hoping for even better sound quality.

I'll report back this weekend.

 

Yes, I have my eye on the LANRover. It's good to hear your positive experience with it.

 

One thing that makes my head hurt is - so once you convert USB to Ethernet on the LEX, do you now have another Ethernet segment that needs FMCs or isolators?

 

[emoji848]

[austinpop]

Today my LPS1 shipped which I'll use to power the LAN Rover and I have a battery setup that will arrive this week to power the TPLink MC200cms. I'm hoping for even better sound quality.

I'll report back this weekend.

 

Yes, please do report back on this.

[MrUnderhill]

Hi Rajiv,

 

I skim read this when you posted it, and I am now reading it in a more leisurely way.

 

This is a great piece of information, and so rarely included:

 

About 80% of my music listening is to classical music on DSD64. The rest is a mix of progressive and classic rock, acoustic jazz, and assorted, also either on DSD or high-res PCM. I listen to almost no 16/44.1 music unless I have to.

The HD800 and the Elear are complementary. The HD800 is unparalleled for classical, but can sound thin and harsh with brighter, less pristine recordings.

 

If I only listened to classical music I would have been satisfied with my system long since, it is the playing of those less pristine recordings which I find frustrating, but they are ones I love. In trying to get the best from these recordings my system has improved, but I find there is a fine balance where I can get more detail but lose tonal texture & increase digital edge.

 

I am glad you are undertaking this comparison. The issue with reading other opinions is that I am less than convinced that they have put in the required effort to ensure that the system has been properly optimised.

 

I will be following your efforts with interest. Thank you for your hard work.

 

M

[austinpop]

Hi Rajiv,

 

I skim read this when you posted it, and I am now reading it in a more leisurely way.

 

This is a great piece of information, and so rarely included:

 

About 80% of my music listening is to classical music on DSD64. The rest is a mix of progressive and classic rock, acoustic jazz, and assorted, also either on DSD or high-res PCM. I listen to almost no 16/44.1 music unless I have to.

The HD800 and the Elear are complementary. The HD800 is unparalleled for classical, but can sound thin and harsh with brighter, less pristine recordings.

 

If I only listened to classical music I would have been satisfied with my system long since, it is the playing of those less pristine recordings which I find frustrating, but they are ones I love. In trying to get the best from these recordings my system has improved, but I find there is a fine balance where I can get more detail but lose tonal texture & increase digital edge.

 

I am glad you are undertaking this comparison. The issue with reading other opinions is that I am less than convinced that they have put in the required effort to ensure that the system has been properly optimised.

 

I will be following your efforts with interest. Thank you for your hard work.

 

M

 

Hi M,

 

Thanks for your kind words.

 

Yes, I felt it important to share that information about my musical and tonal preferences, because it is very necessary context! I realize some of my findings here on CA are contrarian, but perhaps this is one of the reasons.

 

Either way, I try to be scrupulous and unbiased, and don't jump to conclusions.

 

I'll have more to say about less than pristine recordings when I report on my experiences with HQPlayer. I have been familiarizing myself with it, and Roon, since these are modes that are enabled my the mR and the sms-200 that the Aries Mini does not do. It behooves me to look at these as areas of potentially further SQ advancement.

 

The SMS-200 should be in the house by the end of day, if FedEx is to be trusted! Can't wait.

[scan80269]

@austinpop, thanks for your detailed disclosures and reports!

 

I just remembered that last year, while my Aries Mini was being auditioned at a friend's place, one of my audio pals took out a Shun Mook LP clamp and placed it on the Mini, and there was an immediate SQ improvement!

 

Shun Mook Audio, Inc.

 

I remember being completely dumbfounded, as the sonic change was not subtle. This pal also has a collection of Shun Mook MPINGO discs (they look like hockey pucks) that were placed on top of speakers, tube amplifiers and pre-amps for similar sonic improvement. The discs have an orientation to them so they were carefully rotated into position. It was quite an ear-opener to hear how something completely non-electronic can have such a profound impact on the SQ of a system.

 

I guess I've been overly focused on electronic tweaks lately. There is another world of acoustic/physical treatments I have yet to explore.

[austinpop]

The listening sessions with the mR, SMS-200, and Aries Mini continue apace. Thanks to the generosity of my loaner, I have ample time to evaluate these, which is really appreciated, as I strongly believe it takes extended listening to form meaningful comparisons.

 

But in this article, I'll digress to talk about music server types, or apps in mR and SMS-200 parlance. In my intro, one of the objectives I stated was:

• Finally, the mR and SMS-200 enable additional server types, specifically HQPlayer and Roon. Are there SQ improvements to be had, as claimed, just by switching from MinimServer to HQPlayer or Roon?
  

Since I had never tried these, I felt it was high time I did. Also, since many, if not most CA'ers use these endpoints for Roon and/or HQPlayer, I felt my findings in MPD/DLNA mode might carry less relevance without at least a calibration across these server types.

 

Fixed HW chain

 

For this evaluation, I fixed the HW chain to:

Bridged W10 music server > FMC (Teralink LPS) > FMC (LPS-1) > mR (LPS-1) > Intona Industrial > Vbus2 > RUR (el cheapo LPS) > DAC

and varied only the music server types.

 

Yes, I got my replacement Intona, and it is back in the chain. I let it run in for a couple of days, and double checked its effect. Indeed, it does still provide an SQ improvement.

 

A word about bridging

 

Over in this thread, http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f10-music-servers/novel-way-massively-improve-sq-sms-200-and-microrendu-31110/, there is an excellent tweak described - to improve SQ by attaching the endpoint directly to a music server, and configuring a network bridge to maintain full network connectivity.

 

In my experiments, I found the direct attach method to have superior SQ than a router connection, without FMCs in the picture. With FMCs in the chain, it was a wash. Still, for these experiments I kept the direct attach in place.

 

MinimServer on NAS vs W10 Bridged PC

 

Another claim I have read, but never tested, is that the SQ when MinimServer is running directly on a NAS is worse than when it is running on a PC or Mac. Since I had my W10 Enterprise PC already in use for my bridging, Roon, and HQPlayer experiments, I gave this a whirl.

 

Quelle choque! It really does sound better on the PC.

 

After a lot of back and forth, it seems to have something to do with jitter, I feel. I described it here: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f10-music-servers/novel-way-massively-improve-sq-sms-200-and-microrendu-31110/index22.html#post631440 (quoting myself):

It took me a while to put a finger on what exactly made it sound better. The best word I could come up with was focus, or coherence. I recently got the SHM-SACD of Supertramp's Breakfast in America from Japan. What an excellent mastering! On "Gone Hollywood," the beginning 25-30 seconds is a repeating sequence of chords on the keyboard. In scenario 3, the texture and detail of those chords is far more audible. Lovely. I have a strong suspicion that somehow this configuration is reducing jitter. But that makes no sense, given the buffering inherent in the Ethernet interfaces.

 

So, in all further server comparisons in this post, all server types, Roon, HQPlayer, and MinimServer were set up to run on the W10 music server, with the music still residing on the NAS.

 

HQPlayer

 

The advice I'd gotten on HQPlayer from various CA'ers, on and off this thread, was the following:

• Yeah the UI is clumsy, but most people use it with Roon
  
• Even without upsampling, HQPlayer (using NAA) will sound better than MinimServer (using UPnP/DLNA). Practicing my nascent HQPlayer skills, this translated to a (none, none, auto, auto) setting
  
• Upsampling sounds better
  
• But - caution - it's only when you upsample to DSD512 that the magic really happens.
  

So let's go through these.

1. Clumsy UI - check. I doubt this is controversial.
   
2. HQPlayer (no upsampling), mR (NAA mode) vs. MinimServer (no transcoding), mR (MPD/DLNA mode). Honestly, I heard no difference in SQ. Sometimes I could convince myself one or the other was a hair better, but hardly something I could pick out reliably. Finding: no SQ difference heard.
   
3. There are a large number of permutations to try. I was guided by suggestions from people who use HQplayer with the Codex, and others. I tried the following options:
   
   • Upsample everything to DSD128 (max DSD rate supported by DAC), using poly-sinc-2s, DSD7
     
   • Upsample everything to PCM384 (max PCM rate supported by DAC) - poly-sinc
     

As I've mentioned before, a bulk of my music listening is to high-resolution music (primarily DSD64, and the rest 24/96 or 24/192).

 

The only case where I felt HQPlayer clearly sounded better was with harsher Redbook recordings, upsampled to DSD128. Since these are such a small fraction of my collection, this isn't compelling enough for me.

 

Bottom line: for the purposes of this evaluation, given my music choices, my continued use of MinimServer, and the MPD/DLNA mode, in no way disadvantages the mR or the SMS-200 relative to the DLNA-only Aries Mini. At least in SQ terms. Certainly, functionally, having the NAA and Roon modes is a big win on features.

 

Roon

 

The premise of Roon for this eval was completely unrelated to features. Here again, I had been advised that: even without upsampling or any DSP, Roon Server sending to the mR running as a Roon endpoint, using RAAT, had superior SQ to MinimServer sending to the mR in MPD/DLNA mode.

 

As it turned out, Roon 1.3 was released on the day I activated my trial, so these tests were with build 196, I believe, of Roon 1.3.

 

I will mention the Roon UI only in passing. It is unquestioningly slick. But one of my ongoing concerns has been its well-documented limitations for classical music tagging. Certainly I will say that out of the box, it failed to recognize about a third of my collection. I'll be the first to admit, I've devised my own peculiar tagging scheme for classical (not the famous Musichi method). Roon did publish, coincident to 1.3, a guide to classical music tagging, but it requires me to go curate my entire collection and tag it per their recommendations. What I was hoping - more a pipe dream, really! - was that Roon would take my imperfectly tagged collection and render it into a pristine, rich collection. Give me your tired, your poor(ly tagged metadata), Your huddled masses (of music) yearning to breathe free. But sadly, no such luck.

 

For this eval, I had Roon completely prefer my tags, and just focused on the playback.

 

I played the same tracks - first, using the mR in MPD/DLNA mode, controlled by Lumin - and then - using the mR in Roon Endpoint mode, controlled by the Roon app.

 

Roon was configured as straight pass through, i.e. with none of the new DSP or upsampling features.

 

Finding: no SQ difference heard.

 

So here again, my continued use of MinimServer, and the MPD/DLNA mode, in no way disadvantages the mR or the SMS-200.

 

Roon with HQPlayer

 

Since this is the mode so many CA'ers use, I experimented with it. It is really slick! A perfect marriage of the power of Roon with the power of HQPlayer.

 

Well, not quite perfect - you can't change any HQPlayer settings through this integration. If you want to switch HQPlayer settings, you still have to do that on HQPlayer.

 

Other than that, there's nothing to say about this configuration with regards to SQ, since I've already covered the NAA mode above.

 

Conclusions

 

This entire post could be summarized as follows:

 

I've explored Roon and HQPlayer in my system to discover whether their use, instead of MinimServer, provides a further boost in SQ with the mR and SMS-200.

 

For me, on my system, with my DAC, with my music tastes, the answer is no, they do not.

 

Was this a waste of time? No! Knowing that something does not provide a further SQ benefit in your system - i.e. a negative finding - is still very useful, because it answers a question that would otherwise linger and create doubts.

 

Having completed this segue, I have reverted to using MinimServer/MPD/DLNA mode, and have instead renewed my focus on listening to the HW differences between the 3 endpoints!

 

Next installment in a few days.

[Confused]

Some interesting insights @autinpop, thanks for posting. Are you planning a head to head between the mR and the SMS-200? This one's a little inconclusive currently!

[austinpop]

Yes. In progress...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Albrecht]

The listening sessions with the mR, SMS-200, and Aries Mini continue apace. Thanks to the generosity of my loaner, I have ample time to evaluate these, which is really appreciated, as I strongly believe it takes

The advice I'd gotten on HQPlayer from various CA'ers, on and off this thread, was the following:

• Yeah the UI is clumsy, but most people use it with Roon
  

As I've mentioned before, a bulk of my music listening is to high-resolution music (primarily DSD64, and the rest 24/96 or 24/192).

Bottom line: for the purposes of this evaluation, given my music choices, my continued use of MinimServer, and the MPD/DLNA mode, in no way disadvantages the mR or the SMS-200 relative to the DLNA-only Aries Mini. At least in SQ terms. Certainly, functionally, having the NAA and Roon modes is a big win on features.

Roon

 

The premise of Roon for this eval was completely unrelated to features. Here again, I had been advised that: even without upsampling or any DSP, Roon Server sending to the mR running as a Roon endpoint, using RAAT, had superior SQ to MinimServer sending to the mR in MPD/DLNA mode.

I played the same tracks - first, using the mR in MPD/DLNA mode, controlled by Lumin - and then - using the mR in Roon Endpoint mode, controlled by the Roon app.

Roon was configured as straight pass through, i.e. with none of the new DSP or upsampling features.

Conclusions

r whether their use, instead of MinimServer, provides a further boost in SQ with the mR and SMS-200.

Having completed this segue, I have reverted to using MinimServer/MPD/DLNA mode, and have instead renewed my focus on listening to the HW differences between the 3 endpoints!

 

Next installment in a few days.

Hi AustinPop!

Thank you so much for doing all this testing and reporting your results. I am sure that I'm not the only one finding your testing extremely helpful...

I just loaded up Roon on my NAS as a trial, & do have MiniMServer up on it too, as well as LMS from a super new, amazingly fast, iMAC in the basement. I have only fired up miniMserver once, just to make sure that it works.

Your post was super helpful, - so Thanks again!!

[austinpop]

Hi AustinPop!

Thank you so much for doing all this testing and reporting your results. I am sure that I'm not the only one finding your testing extremely helpful...

I just loaded up Roon on my NAS as a trial, & do have MiniMServer up on it too, as well as LMS from a super new, amazingly fast, iMAC in the basement. I have only fired up miniMserver once, just to make sure that it works.

Your post was super helpful, - so Thanks again!!

 

You're welcome.

 

Careful running Roon on your NAS. It's a resource hog, so needs careful setup. See https://kb.roonlabs.com/Roon_Server_on_NAS

 

I was hoping to live happily ever after, running Minim on my NAS, but with my findings, I am reluctantly moving to a PC.

 

It's a slippery slope now. Next, I've been advised to try AO -Audiophile Optimizer, and then who knows. It never ends!

[lmitche]

Was this a waste of time? No! Knowing that something does not provide a further SQ benefit in your system - i.e. a negative finding - is still very useful, because it answers a question that would otherwise linger and create doubts.

 

LOL, I see a DSD512 capable DAC and a i7-6700k in your near future.

[austinpop]

LOL, I see a DSD512 capable DAC and a i7-6700k in your near future.

 

[emoji23]

 

A nice DAC that does DSD512 and MQA decoding would certainly get my attention. Especially in the 2k price range.

 

Oh wait, I forgot the i7-6700k box. And I'll need a high-end LPS for that.

 

Ooh look, more shiny toys!

[jaapdeventer]

Conclusions

 

This entire post could be summarized as follows:

 

I've explored Roon and HQPlayer in my system to discover whether their use, instead of MinimServer, provides a further boost in SQ with the mR and SMS-200.

 

For me, on my system, with my DAC, with my music tastes, the answer is no, they do not.

 

Thanks for setting me at ease with not trying HQplayer. I stick to Minimstreamer on my new Synology ds116 and not using a pc in my setup.

 

ps.

Upgrading from ds112 to ds116 proved a big step up in SQ. The ds112 must have been to busy with transcoding.

 

Synology NAS, LPS-1, microRendu, Job INTegrated, Penaudio Cenya.

[austinpop]

Thanks for setting me at ease with not trying HQplayer. I stick to Minimstreamer on my new Synology ds116 and not using a pc in my setup.

Upgrading from ds112 to ds116 proved a big step up in SQ. The ds112 must have been to busy with transcoding.

 

Synology NAS, LPS-1, microRendu, Job INTegrated, Penaudio Cenya.

 

I hope you registered the caveats - in my system, with my DAC, with my music tastes! The answer may be different for you. Or not.

 

Just wanted to make sure people don't treat my findings as generally applicable.

[jaapdeventer]

I hope you registered the caveats - in my system, with my DAC, with my music tastes! The answer may be different for you. Or not.

 

Just wanted to make sure people don't treat my findings as generally applicable.

Off course you said so loud and clear.

 

Thanks!

 

Synology NAS, LPS-1, microRendu, Job INTegrated, Penaudio Cenya.

[austinpop]

Off course you said so loud and clear.

 

Thanks!

 

Synology NAS, LPS-1, microRendu, Job INTegrated, Penaudio Cenya.

 

Excellent!

[austinpop]

As I've been listening back and forth between the mR and the SMS-200, I'm marveling at how amazing they both sound, and how far the streamer/endpoint concept has come. It's a great time to be a computer audiophile.

 

Just to reinforce what a lucky guy I am, here's a picture of the 3 endpoints taking turns in my setup!

 

 

Just like the previous comparison, I wanted to hold everything else constant, and focus on the hardware. Things I held constant:

• The music server was MinimServer on my bridged W10 machine. See my previous post on my comparisons with other music player architectures.
  
• Network upstream of the endpoint.
  
• DAC and everything downstream.
  

 

Optimized sMS-200 Setup

 

As I did with the mR, I serially applied both the Ethernet (FMC) and USB (Intona, RUR) isolations to the sMS-200. As with both other endpoints, the optimal chain for the sMS-200 was quickly determined to be:

Bridged W10 music server > FMC (Teralink LPS) > FMC (LPS-1) > sMS-200 (LPS-1) > Intona Industrial > Vbus2 > RUR (el cheapo LPS) > DAC

 

Comparison

 

I comared the optimal mR setup with the optimal sMS-200 setup:

Bridged W10 music server > FMC (Teralink LPS) > FMC (LPS-1) > sMS-200 (LPS-1) > Intona Industrial > Vbus2 > RUR (el cheapo LPS) > DAC

Bridged W10 music server > FMC (Teralink LPS) > FMC (LPS-1) > mR (LPS-1) > Intona Industrial > Vbus2 > RUR (el cheapo LPS) > DAC

 

This turned out to be a fairly time-consuming comparison - for two reasons. First, I knew there was a lot of interest here, and not many people have had the opportunity to audition them side to side. So it behooved me to do this carefully and thoroughly. But also - these two products are both excellent, and differences, while they did emerge, are small compared to their baseline quality.

 

Here is the music I used to make the comparison. All but the last one are either DSD or 24/96 PCM, which is representative of the music I listen to.

 

 

On some tracks, like Pueblo Nuevo and Really don't Mind, I was hard pressed to tell any difference. But on the others, to varying degrees, differences were audible.

 

Verdict

 

sMS-200, by a nose.

 

The sMS-200 had just that little extra resolution, coherence, and dynamic punch. I felt this was most evident on Take Five. The piano, the sax, the cymbals, high-hats, just had an extra presence. Similarly on the two Sibelius tracks, the instruments were more coherent, there was just more detail audible, a bit more air around the instruments.

 

Now initially, I felt this extra resolution and dynamism came at the cost of a hint more brightness. But I spent quite a bit of time going back and forth, and I'm convinced that what my ears originally though of as brightness is really just the presence of more detail. It's a circular argument - I know - because often times it's the other way around - we mistakenly find brighter, more forward components to be more resolving. What can I say? I took this pitfall under consideration when evaluating.

 

Also keep in mind I had two pairs of complementary headphones at my disposal. The HD-800 is ultra-resolving, but can be unforgiving too. The Elear is in my system expressly for music where I prefer a warmer, darker sound. I switched back and forth between the two, and my findings held consistently.

 

Final thoughts

 

If I were buying an endpoint today, the sMS-200, paired with the LPS-1 would definitely top my list. But what if you already own an mR, or in my case, an optimized Aries Mini setup?

 

For me, the difference between the optimized Aries Mini setup and the optimized sMS-200 setup, while significant, isn't sufficient to cause me to run out and replace it. Especially since I know that SOtM are working on an enhanced sMS-200 using their sCLK-EX clock, and I'll bet Sonore have something in the pipeline too.

 

As I said, it's a good time to be a computer audiophile!

[austinpop]

I have the devices for a few more days - hopefully!

 

My next experiment is to play with Audiophile Optimizer on the music server to see how much it improves things.

 

I am also willing to try a limited number of tests based on feedback here, and time permitting. Just let me know.

[lmitche]

Rajiv, are you doing any of this listening with speakers?