Aqua Formula - settings new levels of R2R sonics and price performance

[Tango]

when Ed from SGM was here we removed the top cover on the Formula, and Ed looked and determined that the middle top screw on the back plate would be best for a ground connection; so that is what I used. I can take a picture if that explanation is not clear.

and please call me Mike.

Thank you Mr. Lavigne. Picture no need.

Next time I will call you Mike.

 

[Legolas]

No, a much lower cost streamer would beat many more expensive CD players, and selling existing CD players would also help get back some money. The expensive server you refer to like SGM is required to compete only against the best transports all of which are very expensive. Most off the shelf servers are pretty easy to operate too, you don't need to set up a CAPS style one. Either way, AC's point is valid - those who have not gone through these compares...

I am in the Server can beat a CDP camp. Caviet, I haven't heard a top CDP with tube regulated PS and tube on the SPDIF like an Audio Note CD5/6, but have compared quite a few CDPs in the 6K range, and my 'budget' 2.5K Mac Mini / Server combo beats them.

If you think about it, a CD transport is basically a data transfer method in real time off that disc using a laser at very high speeds. There will be timing errors and jitter. If you rip a Redbook file (for example) at 1/5th speed using something like XLD, you can in effect get a better data transfer than the spinner. Also while ripping XLD tracks the data report and checks against a database of other rips for errors, and warns you if there are any detected.

IMO the data sent from a PC/Mac or a purpose built music server loads that file into RAM and feeds it bit-perfect to a DAC, sometimes with further cocking and jitter reduction on the way. It is not difficult to see (and hear) that a server can beat the CD transport. And then there is downloads (full resolution) of the same music that is originated from the studio recordings, thus missing out the CD production element phase (which may have errors or loss in production as well). Then in a physical transport method in real time, I can also imagine there may be speed errors in the motor mechanism.

IMO the comparisons are going to come down to how optimised the PC or Mac that is sending the file, what software is used to play that file (hopefully not iTunes). And how much care has been taken getting rid of noise generated inside a typical PC, i.e. use of linear power supplies, no fan, solid state drive, stripped down system etc. A standard laptop or PC stuffed full of software and using a shared USB out port feeding a DAC is not going to go well TBH. Would you take the family 6 seater to a track day?

So in my view, if you have heard better quality from a CDP then have another look at PC or server based music again, I am confident you will hear the difference, and even if you decide it is as good, then job done. 1,000 of albums accessed in a second, it is a win win IMO.

 

[microstrip]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So all our members that prefer cd replay to file replay: good for you and keep enjoying your cd's. I am spinning myself with my (not standard because revised; inter alia a better clock) Zanden cd--combo in order to be able to play my many cd's that are not available in the vinyl or files format. And I am enjoying myself with cd reply.

That said I am wondering: how many of you have actually compared high res files - eg dsd 256 or dxd recordings - a-b to the same recordings on (sa)cd? The -original - dxd recordings of Bert van der Wolf's Northstar recordings are also sold as Challenge Classics sacd's and these recordings make a fair comparison possible. The same applies to the Channel Classics dsd 64 recordings.

So I am wondering: who did such an a-b test?

I have compared the DSD rip of the famous "La Folia" with the SACD played in DCS Vivaldi transport in the complete Vivaldi stock. When using a Synology NAS with Roon in a non optimized PC the physical SACD was significantly superior.

I have also compared several CD's with the equivalent ripped files with similar results.

 

[bonzo75]

I have compared the DSD rip of the famous "La Folia" with the SACD played in DCS Vivaldi transport in the complete Vivaldi stock. When using a Synology NAS with Roon in a non optimized PC the physical SACD was significantly superior.

I have also compared several CD's with the equivalent ripped files with similar results.

Non optimized PCs are poor. That's like comparing an oppo to a W20 and saying streamers are better

 

[Legolas]

I have compared the DSD rip of the famous "La Folia" with the SACD played in DCS Vivaldi transport in the complete Vivaldi stock. When using a Synology NAS with Roon in a non optimized PC the physical SACD was significantly superior.

I have also compared several CD's with the equivalent ripped files with similar results.

My point, non optimised PC. Also USB out (noise and more noise), and Roon is not the best sounding player. My Powerbook Laptop sounds miles away from my optimised Mac Mini MMK mod and linear PS plus AOIP using A+. That cost me 2.5K, cheap for the performance on offer IMO. This is on Redbook on an R-2R DAC, no high res.

 

[microstrip]

Non optimized PCs are poor. That's like comparing an oppo to a W20 and saying streamers are better

My point, non optimised PC. Also USB out (noise and more noise), and Roon is not the best sounding player. My Powerbook Laptop sounds miles away from my optimised Mac Mini MMK mod and linear PS plus AOIP using A+. That cost me 2.5K, cheap for the performance on offer IMO. This is on Redbook on an R-2R DAC, no high res.

Probably. But as I already understood that this forum will be debating what is "optimized PC" for the next five years (it was already debating it five years ago) I decided to go with a CD transport until a decision is reached. I have started a buying list to build a server two times, and in both occasions it was completely outdated before I started ordering the components.

 

[microstrip]

(...) That's like comparing an oppo to a W20 and saying streamers are better

Do you consider that a W20 is an "optimized server"?

 

[bonzo75]

Do you consider that a W20 is an "optimized server"?

Yes, I would say any streamer - Auralic, Aurender various models, Melco, CAD streamer - while there will be differences in their quality, they will all be better than a non-optimized PC. Will Vivaldi and Esoteric sound better than some of them? Probably.

Anyway, I have given you the data points, Custodian here found his W20 better than his Scarlatti spinner into his Vivaldi dac, there are two dealers preferring streamers to Metronome, and I gave you the example of Gian's friend with the Metronome. All spinners you know well.

 

[bonzo75]

I have started a buying list to build a server two times, and in both occasions it was completely outdated before I started ordering the components.

The fact that it got outdated does not mean it was not good enough in the first place. Changing/maintaining/updating your own DIY PC is a different headache, separate from the debate of whether the outdated version will be sonically superior to a spinner.

Those who don't want the headache should buy an Aurender, but the compromise is it won't be updated but will depreciate rapidly in a few years when the new version comes out. As an expensive server there is SGM, where you outsource the headache to the SGM team to maintain the updates.

 

[microstrip]

Yes, I would say any streamer - Auralic, Aurender various models, Melco, CAD streamer - while there will be differences in their quality, they will all be better than a non-optimized PC. Will Vivaldi and Esoteric sound better than some of them? Probably.

Anyway, I have given you the data points, Custodian here found his W20 better than his Scarlatti, there are two dealers preferring streamers to Metronome, and I gave you the example of Gian's friend with the Metronome. All spinners you know well.

Well my experience with Aurender was just that it has the typical lifeless streamer sound and this was precisely when compared with the Metronome top transports using Metronome DACs. Surely YMMV.

 

[bonzo75]

Well my experience with Aurender was just that it has the typical lifeless streamer sound and this was precisely when compared with the Metronome top transports using Metronome DACs. Surely YMMV.

That is fine, if you compared it, and is a fair data point. Which model was it

 

[microstrip]

That is fine, if you compared it, and is a fair data point. Which model was it

I think it was the top model two or three years ago.

 

[asiufy]

microstrip,

I'm glad you got dCS now, so you can stop using the Metronome as a reference
Anyway, the SACD x ripped DSD thing... I've done that too, with various results... And I became aware of the fact that a DSD rip isn't just a "DSD rip". There are various ways of doing them, and they can each result in different sounding files. I've got the same album, ripped by two different methods, and they sound remarkably different.
I just think this comparison is pointless, unless all you got is SACDs. Take a regular CD, rip it (properly, with EAC etc). Then play it off your transport. What sounds better? That's what's going to matter 99% of the time.

 

[dminches]

Well my experience with Aurender was just that it has the typical lifeless streamer sound and this was precisely when compared with the Metronome top transports using Metronome DACs. Surely YMMV.

Which Aurender(s) did you listen to?

 

[wisnon]

Good morning wisnon,

In digital computer technoloby, I am like apeman. It took me one whole day to figure out how to post a picture in the thread. Extreme plug n play products satisfy my needs. I want to spend my time listening not figuring out how to get music out of a machine. I did mention earlier I had an Aurender playing with various dacs before and I didnt enjoy calling my IT staff every time I listen to it. Thanks to you. Now, everybody knows I am the stupidest person on this forum.

This is whats Best Forum. I have no interest in cheap products. By "cheap" I mean cheap sounding.

Hahaha
Good morning Tango. Don't even try that. No one here even remotely thinks you are stupid much less the stupidest person here. The song says that 1 night in Bangkok makes a hard man humble and I expect you have spent countless nights there, so that explains your extreme humility. Haha.

Not following your logic means just that, nothing more. You went on to elaborate and I take it at face value.
Just because the MP Mini is "cheap" does not mean it can't be potent, given the proprietary software used with interesting patents to back it up. Likewise, Lumins transport are plug and play.
As I said before, its your choice and you seem happy with it, so I am happy for you.

Now, go forth and sin no more. LoL

 

[Tango]

Hahaha
Good morning Tango. Don't even try that. No one here even remotely thinks you are stupid much less the stupidest person here. The song says that 1 night in Bangkok makes a hard man humble and I expect you have spent countless nights there, so that explains your extreme humility. Haha.

Not following your logic means just that, nothing more. You went on to elaborate and I take it at face value.
Just because the MP Mini is "cheap" does not mean it can't be potent, given the proprietary software used with interesting patents to back it up. Likewise, Lumins transport are plug and play.
As I said before, its your choice and you seem happy with it, so I am happy for you.

Now, go forth and sin no more. LoL

Sawasdee Wisnon,

Countless nights indeed. Not only Bangkok. Pattaya too..haha. That was looooooong ago.

Face value is good. I like face value. I am a simple Buddhist who did too many nights in Bangkok.

I apologize I should not use the word cheap. That was rude of me. If there ever a chance, I would like to treat you with Tom Yum Koong and most delicious Pad Thai.

Tang

 

[wisnon]

Sawasdee Wisnon,

Countless nights indeed. Not only Bangkok. Pattaya too..haha. That was looooooong ago.

Face value is good. I like face value. I am a simple Buddhist who did too many nights in Bangkok.

I apologize I should not use the word cheap. That was rude of me. If there ever a chance, I would like to treat you with Tom Yum Koong and most delicious Pad Thai.

Tang

I would surely love to take you up open that. I LOVE that kind of food.
No offense about the term cheap, I understood your point. Its just that The MP tech come HIGHLY recommended by an Industry insider pal of mine who has NEVER steered me wrong.

One Love, one heart.

 

[sbo6]

AES should sound better than USB. The main reason to upgrade from Aurender x100 to the N10 or W20 is the other ways to play (SPDIF and AES) which are naturally better. The difference in USB, while it exists, is not so high. dCS has the dual AES which you can play with dCS network bridge - I found that connecting by AES, I could increase volume much more than connecting by USB using aurender.

Can you please help me understand why AES should sound better than USB?

 

[opus112]

Can you please help me understand why AES should sound better than USB?

One possibility would be isolation - AES includes transformers by design.

 

[Legolas]

Can you please help me understand why AES should sound better than USB?

Not talking just about the Aurender, but I have found USB to have too many 'issues' to then have to retro fix those after they have occurred. USB as a data transfer for high end audio was never designed for that purpose. That and the fact noise and contamination propagates the data stream. The amount of negative impact will depend on how much investment and good design has been implemented in the USB output on the server and input at the DAC. To me, better to avoid it at the start. The only reason for me, to stay on USB is if you are into up sampling PCM to DSD at high sample rates, or up sampling PCM beyond 192. On SPDIF some DACs have a valve at the input which takes that format even further.