Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About barrows

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    High above Boulder

Recent Profile Visitors

12,104 profile views
  1. barrows

    Article: Introducing The Sonore Signature Rendu SE

    Larry, you might want ping Chris: @The Computer Audiophile, there you go. There are some reviews online...
  2. barrows

    Sonore microRendu

    To be clear I do not stream any files from the Internet (Tidal, etc), I only play files from my own, well maintained library, of music which I love. (Bach to TOOL).
  3. barrows

    Sonore microRendu

    I am currently getting very good results via ROON and Signature Rendu SE. There are certainly no tonal anomalies vs. other players (I can measure that via RTA in room). When ROON first came out, I preferred both Minimserver DLNA/MPD and Audirvana+. But ROON has improved a lot in SQ. Now I also oversample to DSD 256 (both for my ESS 9038 based and DSC-2 DACs) and ROON is very, nice with DSD up conversions (depends on the DAC of course). All playback softwares do sound different though, and every system will probably respond a bit differently to different softwares, given all the variables. Of course I need to try HQPlayer/NAA at some point, as most feel Jussi's DSD conversion and SDM is the "best". I just do not have the hardware to handle it right now, and too many other things on my plate (DAC developments, etc).
  4. barrows


    Actually, it is not up to manufacturers to compare their product to anything from another manufacturer. The manufacturer/developer's job is to produce the best possible product they can, within the constrains of feature set and price point which they are working with. It is the job of reviewers and customers to make comparisons and evaluate the products and decide if a given product suits their desires.
  5. barrows


    Except on DAVE, which by all reports does very well with DSD (and no decimation as far as I know).
  6. barrows


    It is different in every case (Chord, PS Audio, etc) Chord uses their "Pulse Array DAC" which appears to consist of resistors and flip flops. Note that they mention different numbers of "elements" of the Pulse Array DAC, and that as you go up their line the number of elements increase, so more elements in Pulse Array, probably means slightly more precise conversion. Also note, this very simple DAC topology is generally going to require a very highly oversampled data stream to produce reasonable results, you would not want to just input a 44.1 kHz signal into a DAC circuit like this, so it needs the high degree of oversampling/filtering done in the FPGA to work. PS Audio sends a single bit stream out from the FPGA (DSD) and then converts to digital just via a low pass filter consisting of Resistors, capacitors, and a transformer as the final low pass element. This discrete DAC circuit is driven by high speed video opamps. Mola Mola (not an FPGA, but it uses instead, high power SHARC processor chips to do its DSP, oversampling/filtering) outputs a 100 MHz(!) single bit stream to a DSC-1 like discrete DAC, which is basically acting as a FIR filter. All of these (relatively simple) conversion approaches require a highly oversampled data stream at their inputs to produce any kind of reasonable result. Most SDM DAC chips are similar as to what they do internally, in a sense. they just do everything on a single chip. Take ESS, on their chips they oversample to a very high rate (MHz range) and then the oversampled data stream gets converted to analog. But the designers who use the blank processor (FPGA or other processor chip) approach have more control over the final sound, as they are using an individualized relatively unique approach. This is not that different from say Miska's approach with the DSC-1 DAC and HQPlayer. The DSC-1 is a discrete, DSD only DAC, which requires DSD 256 or higher input for good performance. Except in Miska's case all the oversampling/filtering is done away from the DAC in the computer running HQPlayer software. This approach has the advantage of running the oversampling/filtering with much more precision and many more options for the user, as the computer has much more processing power than these DACs have. Additionally, there may be sound quality advantages to reducing the amount of processing done inside the DAC (noise, perhaps). These are all individual approaches. Point being, there is no reason to lump DACs together as FPGA DACs.
  7. +1 for Mojo. I use mine with an iPad for traveling (I do not carry a cell phone) and the SQ is superb.
  8. barrows

    Sonore microRendu

    Yes, of course there is. All of these things sound different. ROON, for example uses an entirely different way of streaming over Ethernet. The sound quality differences are not about the data, they are about how much (and what type of) noise is carried along the way to the DAC. Same reason a better Renderer (ultraRendu vs. microRendu for example) will produce better performance.
  9. barrows

    Kate Bush remasters... 24/44.1

    24 bit is an (small) advantage... But it might not be audible. For me, I already have plenty of physical media which I do not need, it is just clutter! I will probably purchase a couple of LPs for collectible reasons, but I need more CDs around like I need a hole in my head.
  10. barrows


    I would suggest that there is no such thing as an "FPGA DAC" at all! FPGAs are not used for the actual D-A conversion process, as their outputs are digital. Take Chord, they run all of their filtering/oversampling/processign in the FPGA, but then the actual conversion is done by the discrete "pulse array DAC". Same with PS Audio, the FPGA handles filtering/oversampling/processing, and then the (mostly) discrete D/A stage handles final conversion to analog. And these two DACs are very different in approach and sound. It is really a mistake to try and group "FPGA DACs" together as if they have something in common in terms of sound quality.
  11. barrows

    Audiophile VS Musiphile - Your Thoughts?

    These are not mutually exclusive: answer: Both!
  12. barrows

    Kate Bush remasters... 24/44.1

    I listened to the Hounds... download last night. Good sound, especially on "The Ninth Wave". Side one has a bit of hardness on the vocals, but I remember this from the original LP as well, it was the 80s after all, and not always known for the best recording quality, or "taste" in sonics. Will listen again today. I'll probably DL The Dreaming today, as it is my favorite, I can compare to my CD rip version. Nice to see the LPs are available separately as well, I'll probably add a couple to my LP collection (maybe I'll even get a 'table and build a phono stage someday...)
  13. Anyone hear these yet? HDTracks appears to be trickling them in. I down loaded Hounds... but have not listened yet. To this point i have been disappointed by digital versions of Kate's catalog so far, at least the older stuff. Aerial CD is pretty good though. Really hoping The Dreaming will be improved... I did not have Hounds... so that was a no brainer. Wish they would sell the LPs individually, as I would pick up a few that way.
  14. barrows

    system advice needed?

    I cannot comment on comparisons, but reports on the ultraDigital are in its thread starting around here: https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/37438-sonore-ultradigtial/?page=6 If you have any technical questions RE the ultraDigital, please I am happy to help.
  15. barrows

    system advice needed?

    microRendu: depends on the connected DAC to an extent, you want to have a PS with at least 1A capability, I prefer to have a bit more current headroom, but with most DACs it will not be necessary. ultraDigital: does not need much, I kind of forget, but 400 mA is plenty isoRegen: ask @Superdad