Innuos is Windows based so you can play music with any kind of software you like.
But that is far away from the thread theme.
You are entering on a never ending one.
I'm getting lost.....
Better ....... No comments.
Last edited:
A new star in 2019 : Innuos Statement Server
- Thread starter CKKeung
- Start date
Better ....... No comments.
Okay. For me it would not be a problem (it would have been a month ago that I still had Lumin) since I currently have a USB DAC. But then the only way to transmit to a network music player is with ROON by RAAT and as long as it is certified as ROON READY?
No, if you have an Ethernet-enabled DAC, it'll likely have support for UPNP as well as Roon.
Let me know which DAC you have, and maybe I can help with the possible set ups. The MSB supports both.
Could you please tell me what OS do it use?No, it's not Windows based. No wonder you're getting lost
Thank you.
I had an Aurender N100. Linux is very stable.
But i’m very surprised on the software focus above sound quality.
Regards.
What are you talking about? "software focus above sound quality"?
Let it go....
I’m more interested on sound than software.
That’s all.
I already have my reference Server.
Good luck on your new project !!!
Well if you insist ...... Apart from the incorrectness of your statement about the operating system of the Innuos (already in the post indicated that InuoOS! Is based on Unix), what really bothered me, is that you have affirmed that I I'm getting out of the thread, by asking (in an Innuos Statment thread) about the UpnP playback software of the Innuos Statement.
Tell me what we should talk about, if silver is more beautiful than black, or what is the best product to clean it without damaging it?
With all my respect, maybe you have to learn more english and see word “you” can be used as plural. Don’t trust always Google Translator....
You don’t have thinking i was talking about you....
At the same time, i have no problem to accept my mistake.... Kill me if you want.
You can talk whatever you want, as it can’t be otherwise... There is no need to suggest such inappropriate questions to present me like a fool....
Good luck on you research !!!!
Last edited:
Thought some of you may be interested in my network optimisation for the Innuos Statement.
I can’t begin to give answers as to exactly why this stuff works, given that we’re moving a digitally formatted analog signal around but the end result most certainly justifies the anal approach. That I guarantee.
As we’re almost never sure what the original recording sounded like, I set my goals in terms of naturalness (real humans singing and playing instruments) joy, excitement, listener involvement, total absence of listener fatigue, musical intensity, rhythmic drive and interplay, passion, ability to communicate atmosphere, mood, a sense of excitement or suspense and the system’s ability to immediately capture and maintain my attention track after track and album after album. When everything is working I should sit enraptured for hours, feeling all the emotions the music is capable of generating.
I started this project with an Innuos Zenith SE and have recently switched to the Statement. I reached the point I’m at now by trying a plethora of different networking strategies and gizmos, which I won’t bore you with. Suffice to say that every step was only taken if it brought a substantial step up in SQ. Some of the measures employed contradicted expectation, indeed one central strategy, a wi-fi connection, was initially avoided for that reason because I thought it would be rubbish.
I listen to both local and remote streaming via the Statement’s internal SSD and Qobuz from my ISP. I often use 128kbps Internet Radio. (Radio Swiss Classic) for warm up and the system is now so capitvating that I often end up listening to their beautiful program material for hours, utterly transfixed. 128kbps! And no, I’m not deaf!
When you look into the engineering of the Statement what you find are several key measures;
The system starts with a ISP cable and modem (Virgin) giving an incoming stream of ca.250Mbps. The modem, a Superhub 3 is connected with a short Synergistic Research Active ethernet cable to the WAN input of a TP Link Archer AC5400 Tri-band router. This way I can dedicate a 5GHz band exclusively to hi-fi duties with its own SSID and password,(so its invisible to other network users) no bandwidth sharing and up to 200mbps transfer rate. This is enough performance to make the iPad Pro controller feel like its a local -to-the-Statement GUI. Both modem and router are connected to a Sean Jacobs dual rail DC3 Mundorf option 5V LMPS, with anti-vibration measures provided by mini Atacama platforms.
In the hi-fi room a TPLink RE650 extender picks up the 5GHz band . Again the extender is dedicated exclusively to hi-fi, with no other clients and the 2.4GHz band and polling switched off. Normally the RE650 would plug into a wall socket, but this has several disadvantages;
The system is in the final stages of running in, but I’m pretty pleased with the results. Delighted in fact. Once the system is completely stable I’ll try removing the AQVox switch, as the Statement’s OCXO controlled ethernet input may well do a better job alone.
So how does remote streaming compare to locally streamed files? Almost as good, certainly no shortcomings that I can identify. There’s far more difference between the actual recordings than between local and remote. And here’s the funny thing. Very often an improvement to remote streaming also improved local streaming’s performance, I’m guessing by removing noise sources that have an impact on processes common to both, like D to A conversion for example.
If you look at your system, this whole thing may look like a whole lot of faffing around but I doubt there’s anywhere in your system that you could spend a similar amount of money for anything like the same improvement in SQ. Not even close I’m guessing.
Oh and one other benefit. My home WiFi, home roaming and hi-res video streaming are now all rock solid.
I can’t begin to give answers as to exactly why this stuff works, given that we’re moving a digitally formatted analog signal around but the end result most certainly justifies the anal approach. That I guarantee.
As we’re almost never sure what the original recording sounded like, I set my goals in terms of naturalness (real humans singing and playing instruments) joy, excitement, listener involvement, total absence of listener fatigue, musical intensity, rhythmic drive and interplay, passion, ability to communicate atmosphere, mood, a sense of excitement or suspense and the system’s ability to immediately capture and maintain my attention track after track and album after album. When everything is working I should sit enraptured for hours, feeling all the emotions the music is capable of generating.
I started this project with an Innuos Zenith SE and have recently switched to the Statement. I reached the point I’m at now by trying a plethora of different networking strategies and gizmos, which I won’t bore you with. Suffice to say that every step was only taken if it brought a substantial step up in SQ. Some of the measures employed contradicted expectation, indeed one central strategy, a wi-fi connection, was initially avoided for that reason because I thought it would be rubbish.
I listen to both local and remote streaming via the Statement’s internal SSD and Qobuz from my ISP. I often use 128kbps Internet Radio. (Radio Swiss Classic) for warm up and the system is now so capitvating that I often end up listening to their beautiful program material for hours, utterly transfixed. 128kbps! And no, I’m not deaf!
When you look into the engineering of the Statement what you find are several key measures;
- EMI optimisation
- Computer task minimisation
- Vibration control
- Power supply optimization
The system starts with a ISP cable and modem (Virgin) giving an incoming stream of ca.250Mbps. The modem, a Superhub 3 is connected with a short Synergistic Research Active ethernet cable to the WAN input of a TP Link Archer AC5400 Tri-band router. This way I can dedicate a 5GHz band exclusively to hi-fi duties with its own SSID and password,(so its invisible to other network users) no bandwidth sharing and up to 200mbps transfer rate. This is enough performance to make the iPad Pro controller feel like its a local -to-the-Statement GUI. Both modem and router are connected to a Sean Jacobs dual rail DC3 Mundorf option 5V LMPS, with anti-vibration measures provided by mini Atacama platforms.
In the hi-fi room a TPLink RE650 extender picks up the 5GHz band . Again the extender is dedicated exclusively to hi-fi, with no other clients and the 2.4GHz band and polling switched off. Normally the RE650 would plug into a wall socket, but this has several disadvantages;
- It would be connected to the noisy house mains;
- it would pick up wall-born vibration
- It would generate internal vibration converting AC to 5V DC and
- it uses a really cheap, nasty, noisy SMPS
The system is in the final stages of running in, but I’m pretty pleased with the results. Delighted in fact. Once the system is completely stable I’ll try removing the AQVox switch, as the Statement’s OCXO controlled ethernet input may well do a better job alone.
So how does remote streaming compare to locally streamed files? Almost as good, certainly no shortcomings that I can identify. There’s far more difference between the actual recordings than between local and remote. And here’s the funny thing. Very often an improvement to remote streaming also improved local streaming’s performance, I’m guessing by removing noise sources that have an impact on processes common to both, like D to A conversion for example.
If you look at your system, this whole thing may look like a whole lot of faffing around but I doubt there’s anywhere in your system that you could spend a similar amount of money for anything like the same improvement in SQ. Not even close I’m guessing.
Oh and one other benefit. My home WiFi, home roaming and hi-res video streaming are now all rock solid.
Last edited:
Hi great description.
I agree with your point of view on the importance of noise in the network. I also give a lot of importance to try to decrease it, I use LPSU for both the router and the switch. It seems that we have come to the same conclusion; reducing the noise at the level of the router or switch improves the sound even though the transmission is from the server files directly to the DAC or Network Player.
I'm just going to give you a suggestion in case you want to try it, both my Switch AQvox and the Router are connected to Entreq boxes with Entreq cables with RJ45 connector. If you try it, you may find that the sound improves.
I agree with your point of view on the importance of noise in the network. I also give a lot of importance to try to decrease it, I use LPSU for both the router and the switch. It seems that we have come to the same conclusion; reducing the noise at the level of the router or switch improves the sound even though the transmission is from the server files directly to the DAC or Network Player.
I'm just going to give you a suggestion in case you want to try it, both my Switch AQvox and the Router are connected to Entreq boxes with Entreq cables with RJ45 connector. If you try it, you may find that the sound improves.
Hi asiufy: I look forward to your thoughts after listening to both Squeezelite and Roon.
Can you tell me why the DSP in Roon is such a negative? Does the DSP upsampling create sound quality issues relative to not engaging DSP?
Really appreciate your thoughts on this.
Thanks.
popspin
popspin,
First, I don't know exactly why software affects sound quality. If I knew, I'd surely be working at it
But in general terms, more software/code is not desirable, and DSP is just more code in the "signal" path, and by disabling it (if you don't need it), Roon will have a smaller footprint on the server, and use less resources.
As I said earlier, I haven't tried the Squeezelite option, as that needs to output via USB, and I don't do USB anymore. At some point I might get the USB module into the MSB and try that, but not for now...
For now, I did try UPNP x Roon, and the results continue to be inconclusive. Some tracks do sound better via UPNP, but some don't. I have reinstated our UPNP infrastructure here in the store, so I'll continue with these tests..
One thing I found out is that Renderer v2 is actually OpenHome compatible, not only UPNP. This is huge, as it allows the use of much better control software, like Linn Kazoo.
cheers,
alex
First, I don't know exactly why software affects sound quality. If I knew, I'd surely be working at it
But in general terms, more software/code is not desirable, and DSP is just more code in the "signal" path, and by disabling it (if you don't need it), Roon will have a smaller footprint on the server, and use less resources.
As I said earlier, I haven't tried the Squeezelite option, as that needs to output via USB, and I don't do USB anymore. At some point I might get the USB module into the MSB and try that, but not for now...
For now, I did try UPNP x Roon, and the results continue to be inconclusive. Some tracks do sound better via UPNP, but some don't. I have reinstated our UPNP infrastructure here in the store, so I'll continue with these tests..
One thing I found out is that Renderer v2 is actually OpenHome compatible, not only UPNP. This is huge, as it allows the use of much better control software, like Linn Kazoo.
cheers,
alex
Last edited:
I'm really surprised. I did not know that ROON could be transmitted using the UpnP protocol. In fact my thought is that ROON designed the RAAT protocol, to overcome the limitations, which in his opinion, had UpnP. How does ROON get through UPnP ?.
May I inquire as to what LSPU you used to replace the wall wort PS for your router and switch........
Thanks.....
Ok, I misunderstood the UpnP x ROON.
So if you do not use Squeezelite, what UpnP server software has installed in Innuos to do the UpnP vs ROON test?
Similar threads
